Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016 978-86-6425-016-0 [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

POJMOVNIK AMERIČKIH PREDSEDNIČKIH IZBORA 2016 THE HANDBOOK OF THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2016 Izdavač Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet političkih nauka Za izdavača Prof. dr Dragan R. Simić Urednici Prof. dr Dragan R. Simić Mr Dragan Živojinović MA Stevan Nedeljković Prevod: Lana Avakumović Priprema i štampa [email protected] Tiraž 500 ISBN 978-86-6425-016-0

Ambasada Sjedinjenih Američkih Država u Republici Srbiji i Balkanski Fond za Demokratiju ne odgovaraju za stavove iznete u ovom Pojmovniku.

UNIVERZITET U BEOGRADU FAKULTET POLITIČKIH NAUKA

POJMOVNIK AMERIČKIH PREDSEDNIČKIH IZBORA 2016 THE HANDBOOK OF THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2016 ZBORNIK RADOVA

Beograd, 2016.

POJMOVNIK AMERIČKIH PREDSEDNIČKIH IZBORA 2016

Sadržaj

Dragan R. Simić, Dragan Živojinović i Stevan Nedeljković Uvodna reč. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 I POZADINA I KONTEKST Jelena Đukić i Nevena Mančić Osvajanje nominacije . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Ketrin Geš Savremeni proces nominovanja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Slobodan Brkić i Milan Ranković Izbor delegata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 II PRELIMINARNI IZBORI Aleksa Hol, Andrej Ševo, Kelsi Šulenberg, Milica Dragišić, Nina Čaprić i Stefan Simić Preliminarni izbori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 III NACIONALNE PARTIJSKE KONVENCIJE Konstantin Magdić Nacionalne partijske konvencije 2016. godine. . . . . . . . . . 45 Marko Despotović Nacionalne konvencije i mediji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Vilijam Najt Pregovaračke nacionalne konvencije. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

6

Sadržaj

IV KAMPANJE Vajat Amaral Kampanje u preliminarnim izborima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 V KANDIDATI Keli Melton Hilari Klinton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Stefan Tasić i Edin Sinanović Berni Sanders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Milan Ranković i Slobodan Brkić Donald Tramp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Konstantin Lijaković Ted Kruz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Stefan Tasić i Edin Sinanović Marko Rubio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 VI UNUTARPARTIJSKE PODELE Teodora Marković i Rajan Bartli Uvod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Teodora Marković Demokratska partija. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Rajan Bartli Republikanska partija . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Rajan Bartli Unutarpartijske podele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 VII KAKO ĆE ISHOD IZBORA UTICATI NA ZAPADNI BALKAN I SRBIJU? Jelena Đukić, Nevena Mančić i Pavle Jakšić Kako će ishod predsedničkih izbora u SAD uticati na Zapadni Balkan i Srbiju? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Marko Despotović Kako će dolazak novog predsednika uticati na američku spoljnu politiku prema Zapadnom Balkanu? . . . . . . . . . 119

Sadržaj

7

VIII REČNIK AMERIČKIH IZBORA Aktuelni predsednik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Anketa/Anketiranje. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Bakli protiv Valea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Biračka inicijativa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Birački predlog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Biračko telo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Blog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244. Blokada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245. Crvena država. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Debata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245. Elektorski kolegijum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Finansiranje iz javnih izvora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Glasanje u odsustvu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Grupa građana protiv Savezne izborne komisije. . . . . . . . . . 246 Hečov zakon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Hroma patka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Izazivač. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247. Izborni program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 „Jedan okrug – jedan predstavnik“. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Kandidat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248. Kandidat favorit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Kokus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248. Komisija za podršku izborima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Komitet za političko delovanje. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Konvencija. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Mekejn-Fajngold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Meki novac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Negativna kampanja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Neopredeljeni glasači . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Nezavisni kandidat/birač . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Nezvanično anketiranje/izjašnjavanje. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Ograničenost trajanja mandata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Otvoreni preliminarni stranački izbori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

8

Sadržaj

Peševi kaputa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Plava država. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 „Podela glasa“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Podeljena vlast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 „Pomozimo Americi da glasa“. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Praćenje istraživanja javnog mnjenja. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Prekrajanje izbornih jedinica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Preliminarni stranački izbori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Protestno glasanje . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Rana promocija . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 „Rast podrške“ posle konvencije . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Referendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Relativna većina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Savezna izborna komisija . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Sastanak u gradskoj skupštini. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Sistem za prikupljanje dobrovoljnih priloga od poreskih obveznika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Specijalni komitet za političko delovanje. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Spin doktor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Super utorak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Tematsko ispitivanje javnog mnjenja. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Treća stranka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Trka konja. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Tvrdi novac/meki novac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Ubedljiva pobeda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Ujednačeno finansiranje ili finansiranje iz javnih izvora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Upečatljiva izjava. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Zakon o kampanji za savezne izbore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Zatvoreni preliminarni izbori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Biografije urednika Pojmovnika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Biografija prevodioca Pojmovnika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Biografije autora priloga u Pojmovniku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Content

9

THE HANDBOOK OF THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2016

Content

Dragan R. Simić, Dragan Živojinović and Stevan Nedeljković Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 I BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Jelena Đukić, Nevena Mančić and Pavle Jakšić Winning the Nomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Katherine Gash The Contemporary Nominating Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Slobodan Brkić and Milan Ranković Selecting the Delegates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 II PRIMARY SEASON Alexa Hall, Andrej Ševo, Kelsea Schulenberg, Milica Dragišić, Nina Čaprić and Stefan Simić Primary Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 III NATIONAL PARTY CONVENTIONS Konstantin Magdić National Party Conventions in 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Marko Despotović National Conventions and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 William Knight Brokered National Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

10

Content

IV CAMPAIGNS Wyatt Amaral Primary Campaigns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 V CANDIDATES Kelly Melton Hillary Clinton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Stefan Tasić and Edin Sinanović Bernie Sanders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Milan Ranković and Slobodan Brkić Donald Trump. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Konstantin Lijaković Ted Cruz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Stefan Tasić and Edin Sinanović Marco Rubio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 VI PARTY DIVISIONS Teodora Marković and Ryan Bartley Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Teodora Marković The Democratic Party. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Ryan Bartley The Republican Party. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Ryan Bartley Party Divisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 VII HOW AN OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION WILL AFFECT WESTERN BALKANS/SERBIA? Jelena Đukić, Nevena Mančić and Pavle Jakšić How will the outcome of Election affect Western Balkans/ Serbia?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Marko Despotović How will the Presidential Election outcome affect the United States’ Foreign Policy towards Western Balkans. . 233

Content

11

VIII GLOSSARY OF U. S. ELECTION TERMS Absentee voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Ballot initiative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Blog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Blue state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Buckley v. Valeo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Caucus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Challenger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. . . . . . . . . . 263 Closed Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Coattails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Convention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Convention bounce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Constituency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Debate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Divided government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Election Assistance Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Electoral College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Federal Election Commission (FEC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Front-loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Front-runner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Gridlock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Hard money/Soft money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Hatch Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Horse race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Incumbent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Independent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Lame duck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Landslide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Matching funds or public funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 McCain-Feingold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

12

Content

Negative ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Nominee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Open primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Plurality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Political Action Committee (PAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Poll/Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Proposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Protest vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Public funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Push polling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Redistricting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Red state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Referendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Single-member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Soft money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Sound bite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Spin doctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Straw poll/vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Swing voters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Super PAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Super Tuesday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Taxpayer check-off system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Term limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Third party. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Ticket splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Town hall meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Tracking survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Biographies of the Handbook‘s Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Biography of the Handbook’s translator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Biographies of the Hanbook’s authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Uvodna reč

13

Uvodna reč Dragi čitaoci, U godini kad se održavaju 58. po redu predsednički izbori u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, odnosno kad će biti izabran 45. predsednik najmoćnije zemlje sveta, Centar za studije Sjedinenih Američkih Država Fakulteta političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu i Centar za društveni dijalog i regionalne inicijative, uz podršku ambasade Sjedinjenih Američkih Država u Republici Srbiji i Balkanskog Fonda za demokratiju, pored organizovanja mnogih drugih aktivnosti koje su pratile ove izbore, angažovali su se i na objavljivanju Pojmovnika američkih predsedničkih izbora. Aktivnosti na izradi pojmovnika su započete u februaru ove godine i rezultat su zajedničkog rada dve grupe studenata, jedne sa Univerziteta Klemson iz Južne Karoline (Sjedinjene Američke Države) i druge sa Fakulteta političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu (Republika Srbija). Naime, od 22. januara do 2. maja 2016. godine na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu (u okviru saradnje između Centra za studije Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Departmana za političke nauke Univerziteta Klemson iz Južne Karoline) boravila je grupa od sedam studenata sa Univerziteta Klemson. Kao deo prve generacije studenata koje je boravila u Beogradu u okviru programa studiranja u inostranstvu

14

Uvodna reč

(Clemson University Study Abroad Program – Spring Semester in Belgrade) imali su prilike da slušaju i polažu pet predmeta koji su im kasnije po povratku u SAD bili priznati kao da su ih tamo polagali. Pored predmeta koji su deo fakultetskog kurikuluma na Klemsonu (Spoljna politika SAD, Teorije međunarodnih odnosa, Evropske integracije i Međunarodna ekonomija), a koje su izvodili profesori Dragan R. Simić, Tanja Miščević, Maja Kovačević i Ivan Vujačić, u okviru predmeta „Srpska kultura i istorija“. Uz predavanja koja su slušali važan deo je bio i druženje i saradnja sa našim studentima. Tako se svake srede od početka februara do početka maja, grupa od petnaestak naših studenata i sedmoro studenata iz Južne Karoline sastajala, razgovarala i debatovala o američkim predsedničkim izborima 2016. godine, kao i parlamentarnim izborima u Srbiji održanim 24. aprila. Kao rezultat te saradnje i potrebe da se američki predsednički izbori približe zainteresovanoj javnosti u Srbiji (pre svega studentima), nastao je ovaj pojmovnik. Obrazac po kom se zbornik radio delimično prati strukturu objašnjenja američkih predsedničkih izbora koji je dat u publikaciji koju izdaje Istraživačka služba američkog Kongresa (Congressional Research Service).1 Pojmovnik se sastoji od sedam celina: 1) Pozadina i kontekst izbora; 2) Preliminarni izbori; 3) Nacionalne partijske konvencije; 4) Kampanje; 5) Kandidati; 6) Unutarpartijske podele; 7) Kako će ishod izbora uticati na Zapadni Balkan i Srbiju. Iako je pisanje pojmovnika završeno sredinom maja, kada su preliminarni izbori još trajali, odlučili smo da ne menjamo u većoj meri tekst i da ga ostavimo 1

Videti Kevin J. Coleman, The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Conventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service, Washington D. C., December 30 2015, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42533.pdf (pristupljeno 20. 1. 2016.)

Uvodna reč

15

onako kako je on izgledao u trenutku kada je napisan. Da bi se tekst približio i čitaocima u Sjedinjenim Državama, kao i zbog činjenice da su američki studenti svoje tekstove pisali na engleskom, odlučili smo da pojmovnik štampamo dvojezično, na srpskom i engleskom jeziku. Zahvalnost za prevod pojmovnika dugujemo koleginici Lani Avakumović, studentkinji četvrte godine na Odeljenju za međunarodne studije Fakulteta političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Svega ovoga ne bi bilo bez pomenute saradnje sa Univerzitetom Klemson, i za to su najzaslužniji profesori Vladimir Matić i Džef Pik, šef tamošnjeg Departmana za političke nauke. Sastavni deo ove knjige čini i „Rečnik američkih izbora“ koji smo 2012. godine, tokom prethodnih predsedničkih izbora u SAD uradili sa tadašnjom generacijom studenata master studija SAD na Fakultetu političkih nauka. Premda je od tada proteklo četiri godine, rečnik nije izgubio ništa na svojoj aktuelnosti i odlučili smo da ga objavimo u celini, onako kako je tada izgledao. Zahvalni smo tadašnjoj generaciji polaznika master studija SAD što je učestvovala u jednom takvom poduhvatu. Na kraju, najveću zahvalnost dugujemo studentima koji su učestvovali u ovom projektu bez čijeg truda ovaj pojmovnik ne bi ni ugledao svetlost dana. Reč je o sledećim koleginicama i kolegama: Katherine Gash, Kelsea Schulenberg, Kelly Melton, Alexa Hall, Ryan Bartley, Caleb Knight, Wyatt Amaral (Sjedinjene Američke Države), Teodori Marković, Neveni Mančić, Jeleni Đukić, Nini Čaprić, Milici Dragišić, Lani Avakumović, Marku Despotoviću, Milanu Rankoviću, Slobodanu Brkiću, Urošu Kusturiću, Konstantinu Lijakoviću, Konstantinu Magdiću, Stefanu Tasiću, Stefanu Simiću, Andreju Ševu, Pavlu Jakšiću, Edinu Sinanoviću, Mijatu Kostiću (Republika Srbija)... Ambasada Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Balkanski fond za demokratiju prepoznali su značaj jednog ovakvog projekta

16

Uvodna reč

i zahvalni smo im za podršku koju su dali u njegovom ostvarivanju. Nadamo se da će studentima i svima koji se zanimaju za američku politiku i predsedničke izbore pojmovnik biti od koristi, ne samo tokom ovih izbora, nego i u američkim predsedničkim izborima u godinama koje su pred nama. U Beogradu, na Miholjdan, 12. oktobra 2016. godine

Prof. dr Dragan R. Simić, mr Dragan Živojinović, MA Stevan Nedeljković

I POZADINA I KONTEKST

Pozadina i kontekst

19

Jelena Đukić,* Nevena Mančić**

Osvajanje nominacije Potencijalni kandidati za američke predsedničke izbore moraju da pređu dug put pre nego što ih njihove partije zvanično nominuju. To je jedan od osnovnih razloga zbog kog predsednička izborna kampanja počinje toliko rano. Pre nego što kandidat objavi da će se nadmetati u trci za „najmoćniju fotelju na svetu“, mora da postavi sebi pitanja poput: Šta njegova/njena porodica misli o tome? Da li mogu sebi da priušte kampanju? Da li mogu da skupe dovoljno novca? Da li će imati vremena za čitav proces? Da li je baš ovo njihova godina? Ukoliko su odgovori pozitivni, na red dolaze sledeći koraci kao što su izbor pouzdanih članova svog tima, pripremanje detaljnog plana kampanje, prikupljanje finansijskih sredstava ili čak pohađanje seminara ili škola kako bi celokupna organizacija bila na najvišem mogućem nivou.1 Zvanična objava kandidata o ulasku u izbornu trku obeležava početak kampanje. Govori, rukovanja, slikanje sa decom i kućnim ljubimcima počinju punom parom. U početnoj fazi kampanje, kandidati teže da zadobiju podršku delegata svoje partije u nadi da će stati iza njih na nacionalnoj partijskoj konvenciji. Nezavisni kandidati koji nisu članove nijedne partije takođe mogu da se oprobaju u ovom maratonu ukoliko uspeju da sakupe dovoljan broj potpisa registrovanih birača. * E-mail: [email protected] ** E-mail: [email protected] 1

http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=104, (pristupljeno 13. marta 2016.)

20

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Dve ključne faze procesa nominacije su preliminarni izbori i kokusi.2 Oni čine deo nominacije u kojima građani imaju priliku za direktno učešće. Preliminarni izbori su slični klasičnim izborima gde učesnici odlaze na lokalna biračka mesta i glasaju za kandidata po svom izboru. Kokusi imaju deliberativni karakter budući da se na njima raspravlja o izboru delegata koji će predstavljati države na narednom nivou, nacionalnoj konvenciji. Partijski komiteti u svakoj pojedinačnoj državi samostalno odlučuju o pravilima svojih izbora. Posledično, postoje različite kombinacije, te preliminarni izbori, odnosno kokusi, mogu biti otvoreni ili zatvoreni, obavezujući ili neobavezujući, kao i proporcionalni ili većinski. Nezavisni kandidati ne moraju da učestvuju u ovoj fazi budući da nisu članovi partija. Ukoliko uspeju da sakupe dovoljan broj potpisa, njihova imena će se naći na glasačkom listiću. Političke partije u Americi organizuju nacionalne partijske konvencije kako bi formalno odabrali svoje kandidate za predsedničke izbore. Na konvencijama se okupljaju svi delegati jedne partije iz svake od pojedinačnih država, a održavaju se tokom leta pre predsedničkih izbora. Pored nominovanja, svrha konvencija jeste i usvajanje partijske platofrme sa svim predloženim načelima i ciljevima. U modernim kampanjama, konvencije u velikoj meri imaju ceremonijalni karakter.3 U julu 2016. godine biće održana 47. nacionalna konvencija Demokratske partije u Filadelfiji, kao i 41. nacionalna konvencija Republikanske partije u Klivlendu.4 Da bi osvojili nominacije na konvencijama, kandidati moraju da obezbede podršku delegata, tako da su određeni dani preliminarnih izbora, prikazani 2

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/current-events/nomination-process/, (pristupljeno 13. marta 2016.) 3 Isto 4 https://www.usa.gov/election#item-211665, (pristupljeno 13. marta 2016.)

Pozadina i kontekst

21

na slici ispod, od izuzetnog značaja za njihov uspeh. Delegati su veoma često partijski aktivisti, lokalni lideri ili pak od samog početka podržavaju određene kandidate.5 Svaka partija ima sopstvenu formulu za određivanje veličine delegacije. U obzir se uzimaju različiti kriterijumi poput broja stanovnika, predstavnika države u Kongresu ili lokalnim vladama koji su članovi partije, kao i obrazaca glasanja država na prethodnim predsedničkim izborima.6 Poslednjeg dana konvencije, nominovani kandidati za predsednika i potpredsednika izlažu pripremljene govore. Posle završenih konvencija prelazi se na opšte predsedničke izbore. Predsednički kandidati učestvuju u debatama i izbornoj kampanji širom zemlje.7 U ovoj fazi, cilj im je da predstave svoje ideje građanima i da zadobiju podršku potencijalnih glasača. Kada biraju predsednika, birači zapravo glasaju za članove elektorskog kolegijuma koji zatim daju svoje glasove u skladu sa voljom naroda i, na kraju, biraju predsednika i potpredsednika SAD. Elektorski kolegijum broji 538 članova, te je kandidatu potrebno 270 glasova za pobedu na predsedničkim izborima. Ukoliko niko ne osvoji dovoljan broj glasova u izbornom kolegijumu, novog predsednika će izabrati Predstavnički dom američkog Kongresa.8 Iako je tehnički moguće da do ovakve situacije dođe, institucija elektorskog kolegijuma predstavlja izuzetno važan činilac dugoročne političke stabilnosti SAD-a. 5

http://www.cfr.org/elections/us-presidential-nominating-process/p37522, (pristupljeno 13. marta 2016.) 6 https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundlesspolitical-science-textbook/interest-groups-7/party-organization-57/ national-convention-329-8402, (pristupljeno 13. marta 2016.) 7 https://www.usa.gov/election#item-211665, (pristupljeno 13. marta 2016.) 8 http://www.enchantedlearning.com/vote/presidential_elections. shtml, (pristupljeno 13. marta 2016.)

22

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Ketrin Geš*

Savremeni proces nominovanja Proces nominovanja u američkim predsedničkim izborima je u skorijoj istoriji pretrpeo značajne izmene. Stari način nominovanja je bio na snazi do 1968. godine, a od tada dominira savremeni. Promene u procesu nominacije je uvela Komisija za strukture partija i izbor delegata (The Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection), poznatija kao Komisija „MekGavern-Frejzer“.1 Ko­misija je formirana kao odgovor na kontroverznu nacionalnu konvenciju Demokratske partije u Čikagu 1968. godine.2 Naime, u toku konvencije došlo je do nemira na ulicama na kojima je većina demonstranata protestvovala zbog rata u Vijetnamu i nepoštovanja građanskih prava u SAD. Istovremeno, na konvenciji je došlo do komešanja i razmirica unutar Demokratske partije.3 Članovi partije se nisu slagali ni oko procedure ni oko konkretnih politika. Pored toga, nisu usvojili zajednički stav o ratu u Vijetnamu. Lideri partije su optuženi za zloupotrebu moći budući da su nominovali Hjuberta Hamfrija (Hubert Humphrey), kandidata koji nije učestvovao ni u jednim preliminarnim izborima, a ne Judžina Mekartija (Eugene McCarthy) koji je uživao podršku od samog početka kampanje. Hamfri je težio da obezbedi podršku u državama koje nisu održavale * [email protected] 1

https://poliscinews.wordpress.com/tag/mcgovern-fraser-commission/, George McGovern and the Primary Process. (2012, October 24). Pristupljeno 1. marta 2016. 2 Isto 3 Isto

Pozadina i kontekst

23

preliminarne izbore, a u kojima su partijski lideri imali kontrolu nad glasovima delegata. Samo četrnaest država je, uključujući i Vašington, održavalo preliminarne izbore 1968. godine. Uprkos glasovima birača i rezultatima preliminarnih izbora, Hamfri je osvojio najviše glasova delegata jer je iza njega stajao partijski vrh.

24

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Hamfrijeva nominacija je dovela do raskola unutar Demokratske partije4 koji je rezultirao formiranjem Komisije MekGavern-Frejzer u cilju pospešivanja procesa nominovanja.5 Pre nastanka Komisije, predsedničkog kandidata su uglavnom birali partijski lideri i bilo je znatno manje preliminarnih izbora i uopšte učešća javnosti. 6 Shodno tome, same kampanje su počinjale kasnije i trajale kraće, a nisu postojala ni ograničenja troškova na federalnom nivou.7 Takođe, medijska pokrivenost izborne kampanje je bila relativno mala u poređenju sa prostorom i pažnjom koju danas dobija. Svi navedeni činioci doveli su do toga da pre 1968. godine gotovo nije ni postojao nadzor biračkog tela nad procesom nominovanja predsedničkih kandidata.8 Visok nivo transparentnosti uveden nakon formiranja Komisije značio je i višu stopu zainteresovanosti i učešća javnosti. U novoj proceduri nominovanja partijski lideri su izgubili najveći deo svog uticaja na račun kandidata koji sada dominiraju scenom.9 Otvoreni su preliminarni izbori u novim državama na kojima birači mogu da glasaju za kandidata po svom izboru.10 Ovi izbori se održavaju po rasporedu od kraja januara ili početka februara pa sve do sredine juna11, a zavisno od države mogu imati i formu kokusa – okupljanja članova partije. Ti članovi su uglavnom najviši partijski funkcioneri za koje se pretpostavlja 4

Isto Isto 6 Center, J. A. (1974). 1972 Democratic Convention Reforms and Party Democracy. Political Science Quarterly, 89(2), 325-350. doi:10.2307/2149263 7 Isto 8 Isto 9 Cooper, A. L. (2001). Nominating Presidential Candidates: The Primary Season Compared to Two Alternatives. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 771-793. doi:10.2307/449234 10 Isto 11 Isto 5

Pozadina i kontekst

25

da će najbolje zastupati volju celokupnog članstva.12 Izbori su pretežno ravnomerno raspoređeni u toku sezone, s tim što postoje određeni dani, poput „Super utorka“, u kojima se istovremeno održava više izbora.13 Međutim, moguće je i da kandidat uspe da obezbedi dovoljno veliku podršku pre kraja sezone preliminarnih izbora, što oduzima svaki uticaj državama koje još uvek nisu glasale (tzv. „front-loading“).14 Povećan broj preliminarnih izbora podrazumevao je i duže trajanje izborne kampanje. Veće učešće javnosti dovelo je i do aktivnije uloge medija, a kandidati danas koriste medijski prostor za promovisanje svojih platformi putem tribina i debata. Njihov glavni cilj je da pridobiju većinu delegata na svoju stranu i tako budu nominovani.15 Glasovi delegata se dodeljuju ili posredstvom izbornog tela ili pomoću „super-delegata“. Način dodeljivanja varira od države do države i može biti ili proporcionalan ili većinski („winner-take-all“). 16 Super-delegati trenutno postoje samo u Demokratskoj stranci i imaju slobodu da podrže kandidata po svom izboru. Nova pravila koja je uvela Komisija Mekgavern-Frejzer su prvi put stupila na snagu na predsedničkim izborima 1972. godine. Transformisala su proces nominacije umanjujući uticaj partijskih lidera u korist birača. Iako su reforme uglavnom pozitivno prihvaćene, postojale su i određene kritike u pogledu pomenutog „front-loading“ fenomena. Postoji mišljenje da mogućnost kandidata za obezbeđivanje dovoljne podrške delegata pre kraja preliminarnih izbora unosi neravnotežu u čitav proces i oduzima značaj glasovima država koje izbore održavaju kasnije. Međutim, ne postoji razlog da proces nominovanja 12

14 15 16 13

Isto Isto Isto Isto Isto

26

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

ne prođe kroz dodatne reforme koje bi donele rešenje i za ovaj problem.

Izvor: Istraživački centar „Pew“

Ostali izvori: 1.

2.

Our Campaigns – US President – D Primaries Race – Mar 12, 1968. (n.d.). From http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail. html? Race ID=47021. Retrieved April 21, 2016. Primaries, caucuses and conventions: Classic races for the presidential nomination. (n.d.). From https://web.archive.org/ web/2009 1027101746/http://, geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes /3991/Dem1968.html. Retrieved April 21, 2016.

Pozadina i kontekst 3.

27

DeSilver, D. (2016, February 17). Near-record number of primaries this year, but not quite as early. From http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/17/nearrecord-number-of-primaries-this-year-but-not-quite-as-early/. Retrieved April 22, 2016.

28

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Slobodan Brkić,* Milan Ranković**

Izbor delegata Gopal Ratnam (Gopal Ratnam) i Džonatan Masters (Jonathan Masters) definišu delegate kao “partijske aktiviste, lokalne političke lidere ili članove partija koji od samog početka podržavaju određenog kandidata... među delegatima se mogu naći i članovi upravnih odbora kampanje ili oni koji su duže vreme aktivni u lokalnim partijskim organizacijama”.1 Kevin J. Kolman (Kevin J. Coleman) tvrdi da su „do pre par decenija nacionalne partijske konvencije imale ključnu ulogu u izboru predsedničkih kandidata. U eri ’partijskih šefova’, lideri na državnom ili lokalnom nivou su često kontrolisali čitave blokove delegata ili delegacije celih država, zato što su delegati birani na zatvorenim sastancima ili konvencijama stranaka. Predsedničkim kandidatima je bila neophodna podrška lidera i šefova tako da su dogovori sa njima bili od presudnog značaja“.2 On navodi i da su dva osnovna načina izbora delegata za nacionalne konvencije preliminarni izbori i kokusi.3 L. Sendi Mejzel (L. Sandy Maisel) ističe da su * [email protected] ** [email protected] 1

Gopal Ratnam, Jonathan Masters, The U.S presidential nominating process, CFR backgrounders, Updated: February 9,2016, http:// www.cfr.org/elections/us-presidential-nominating-process/ p37522, (pristupljeno 8. 3. 2016) 2 Kevin J. Coleman, The presidential nomination process and the national party conventions, 2016: Frequently asked questions, Congressional research service, December 30, 2015, p. 1. 3 Ibidem.

Pozadina i kontekst

29

„pre izbora 1832. godine partije počele da održavaju konvencije na koje su dolazili delegati iz čitave zemlje kako bi izabrali predsedničkog kandidata“.4 Šumejker i Berdet (Paul Schumaker and Burdett A. Loomis) su pisali o grupi “reformista” u Demokratskoj partiji koji su tokom 1960ih i 1970ih gotovo u potpunosti izmenili pravila o izboru delegata i odlučivanju na konvencijama. „To su uradili radi veće demokratičnosti unutar partije i u najvećoj meri su uspeli u svojoj nameri. Od 1972. godine više ljudi nego ikada ranije učestvuje u procesu nominovanja“.5 Sa druge strane, Alan Grent (Alan Grant) ne deli njihovo mišljenje i ističe da je insistiranje Demokratske partije na predstavljanju i povećanoj primeni preliminarnih izbora 1972. i 1976. godine dovelo do isključivanja nekih od ključnih partijskih ličnosti u Kongresu ili na nivou država, te da delegati nisu više imali dodira sa prosečnim demokratskim biračima.6 Pravila procedure izbora delegata i prikupljanja sredstava zahtevaju da kandidati obezbede široku narodnu podršku kako u pojedinačnim državama (za delegate), tako i preko njihovih granica (za novac), ističu Polski, Vildavski, Šir i Hopkins (Nelson W. Polsby, Aaron Wildavsky, Steven E. Schier, David A. Hopkins). 7 Barbara Norander (Barbara Norrander) se bavila različitim pravilima koja se tiču delegata. Ona navodi da „dve partije imaju zaseban sistem raspodele delegata na svih 50 država i nekoliko te4

L Sandy Maisel, American political parties and elections: A very short introduction, Oxford University press, 2007, p. 41. 5 Paul Schumaker, Burdett A. Loomis, Choosing a president: The electoral college and beyond, Chatham House Publishers of Seven Bridges press LLC, 2002, p.109 6 Alan Grant, The American political process, Routledge, Seventh edition, 2004, p. 214. 7 Nelson W. Polsby, Aaron Wildavsky, Steven E. Schier, David A. Hopkins, Presidential elections: Strategies and structures of American politics, Thirteenth edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2012, p. 96.

30

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

ritorija. Dalje, postoje pravila koja obuhvataju načine na koji se delegati iz svake od država dodeljuju kandidatima koji se takmiče u preliminarnim izborima ili kokusima. Konačno, nekoliko delegata, prvenstveno u Demokratskoj partiji, bira se potpuno nezavisno od glasova biračkih tela država. Ti delegati imaju potpunu slobodu da izaberi bilo kog kandidata“. 8 Na predsedničkim izborima 2016. godine kandidatu Demokratske partije biće potrebno najmanje 2,382 od ukupno 4,673 delegata kako bi osvojio nominaciju, dok će kandidat Republikanske partije morati da osvoji glasove 1,237 delegata od ukupno 2,472.9

8

Ibidem. Gopal Ratnam, Jonathan Masters, The U.S presidential nominating process, op.cit.

9

Preliminarni izbori

II PRELIMINARNI IZBORI

31

32

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Preliminarni izbori

33

Aleksa Hol,* Andrej Ševo,**1 Kelsi Šulenberg,*** Milica Dragišić,**** Nina Čaprić,***** i Stefan Simić******

PRELIMINARNI IZBORI Uvod u preliminarne izbore Proces odabira kandidata za funkciju predsednika SAD-a je kompleksan i sastoji se iz dva tipa izbora: preliminarnih i opštih. Najpre se održavaju preliminarni, u praksi uglavnom počinju šest meseci pre opštih. Svrha preliminarnih izbora jeste da obe vodeće partije odaberu po jednog kandidata koji će se nadmetati na opštim izborima. Predstojeći deo pojmovnika biće fokusiran na različite aspekte procesa preliminarnih izbora, uključujući institucionalnu organizaciju i njihov uticaj na politički sistem SAD-a. Poreklo preliminarnih izbora Dva su ključna razloga dovela do nastanka preliminarnih izbora: odbacivanje sistema partijskih konvencija i uvođenje tajnog glasanja koje je omogućilo slobodne izbore za nominovanje kandidata unutar partija. Prvi preliminarni izbori održani su na Floridi na samom početku dvadesetog veka, 1901. godine. Od tada se njihov značaj * [email protected] ** [email protected] *** [email protected] **** [email protected] ***** [email protected] ****** [email protected]

34

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

konstantno povećava i uvedeni su u većini pojedinačnih država što je dovelo do većeg uticaja birača u izboru kandidata za opšte izbore, a samim tim i do umanjivanja moći političkih partija i njihovih lidera.

Preliminarni izbori i kokusi U okviru preliminarnog sistema, postoje dve vrste izbora na kojima države mogu birati kandidate, a to su preliminarni izbori i kokusi, iako neke države kombinuju obe metode. Preliminarni izbori su daleko popularnija opcija budući da samo četrnaest država primenjuje sistem kokusa. Preliminarni izbori se odvijaju u organizaciji izbornih zvaničnika u svakoj od pojedinačnih država, a birači odlaze na svoje biračko mesto da bi popunili glasački listić. Upotrebom glasačkih listića garantuje se privatnost birača prilikom odlučivanja. Listići takođe mogu biti popunjeni kod kuće zahvaljujući dozvoljenom deponovanju glasova što podstiče one koje nisu u fizičkoj mogućnosti da odu na biračko mesto. Postoje dve vrste preliminarnih izbora – otvoreni i zatvoreni sistem. Pojedinačne države utvrđuju jedinstvena pravila, a osnovna razlika jeste u ulozi i statusu birača koji nisu članovi ili simpatizeri partija. 2 U otvorenom sistemu birači mogu da izaberu da li će učestvovati u izboru demokratskog ili republikanskog kandidata nezavisno od toga da li su povezani sa nekom od tih stranaka. Na primer, registrovani član Demokratske stranke može da glasa na preliminarnim izborima Republikanske stranke 2

The Economist Data Team. 2016. “America’s primary agenda: 2016 election calendar.” April 6. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/04/primary-season, (pristupljeno: 13. aprila 2016.)

Preliminarni izbori

35

u državi koja ima otvoreni sistem. Kod zatvorenih sistema situacija je suprotna: samo birači koji su registrovani mogu glasati na preliminarnim izborima odnosne partije. Kombinovanje ova dva sistema nije uobičajeno, ali postoji mali broj država koji to praktikuje. Drugi tip preliminarnog sistema su kokusi i oni se značajno razlikuju od preliminarnih izbora u više aspekata. Kokuse možemo definisati kao lokalne i državne sastanke koje u potpunosti organizuju i finansiraju političke partije partije. U njima učestvuju isključivo registrovani birači koji debatuju o potencijalnim kandidatima. Stranke različito osmišljavaju kokuse, Republikanska partija je ove godine u Ajovi sprovela tajno glasanje, dok su se demokrate fizički okupljale oko kandidata kojeg podržavaju. Iz tačke gledišta učesnika, kokusi se razlikuju od preliminarnih izbora jer zahtevaju posvećenost i vreme koje većina birača radije ne bi ulagala. Dodatno, pravila su znatno komplikovanija od preliminarnih izbora na kojima birači jednostavno zaokruže ime na glasačkom listiću.3

Izvor: časopis “The Economist” 3

Isto

36

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Uopšteno o delegatima i njihovoj ulozi Iako su glasovi biračkog tela izuzetno važni tokom preliminarnih izbora, uloga birača je prvenstveno da usmeravaju delegate. Za razliku od neposrednih izbora, birači u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama zapravo dodeljuju svoje glasove degatima koji zatim daju podršku određenom kadidatu. Svaka država ima određen broj delegata, a obe partije po pravilu održavaju nacionalne konvencije na kojima delegati kolektivno odlučuju ko će predstavljati njihovu partiju na opštim izborima. Delegati bi trebalo da glasaju za kandidate koje su birači odabrali tokom preliminarnih izbora, ali u praksi imaju slobodu da glasaju po svom izboru. Razlike između delegata Republikanske i Demokratske partije Osnovna razlika između dve partije u kontekstu izbora jeste način na koji funkcionišu preliminarni izbori i sistem dodeljivanja delegata kandidatima. U Republikanskoj stranci pojedinačne države same biraju da li će delegati biti dodeljeni većinski (pobednik dobija sve ili većinu (bonus) delegata) ili proporcionalno.4 Nasuprot tome, Demokratska partija dozvoljava sa­mo proporcionalno dodeljivanje. To znači da svaki kandi­dat dobija broj delegata srazmerno procentu glasova koje je osvojio u datoj državi. Pored toga, u Demokratskoj stran­ ci postoje i superdelegati koji glasaju potpuno nezavi­sno od celokupnog izbornog procesa. Superdelegati su najčešće članovi Kongresa, guverneri, bivši predsednici ili drugi istaknuti članovi partije. Njih ima 712 i mogu da glasaju za bilo kog demokratskog kandidata kojeg podržavaju. Institucija superdelegata je prilično kontroverzna među biračima budući da postoji mišljenje da oni dovode u pitanje demokratičnost procesa.5 Kandidatima Re Winner-take-all (WTA), winner-take-most (WTM), proportional representation (PR) 5 Ibid. 4

Preliminarni izbori

37

Izvor: „Politico Magazine”

publikanske stranke je potrebno najmanje 1,237 glasova delegata da bi osvojili nominaciju, dok je u Demokratskoj stranci potrebno 2,383.

Izvor: „Politico Magazine“

38

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Prednosti preliminarnih izbora Osnovna prednost preliminarnih izbora jeste mogućnost da se aktivnosti kampanje fokusiraju na jedno područje što znači da kandidati ne moraju da budu politički prisutni u svim državama istovremeno. U pogledu običnih birača, ovakav sistem podstiče njihovu uključenost u političkom procesu. Kada ne bi bilo preliminarnih izbora, kandidate bi ili birale partije bez obaziranja na preferencije glasača ili bi se veći broj kandidata nadmetao na opštim izborima ispred jedne partije. Mane preliminarnih izbora Postoje i nedostaci ovakvog sistema predsedničkih izbora. Raspored preliminarnih izbora daje veliku količinu političke moći i uticaja državama koje ih održavaju ranije, bez obzira na njihovu veličinu ili broj stanovnika. Predsednički kandidati posvećuju izuzetno mnogo vre-

Izvor: „The Pendulum”, Studentska novinarska organizacija Univerziteta „Elon“

Preliminarni izbori

39

mena kampanjama u tim državama. Za razliku od njih, države u kojima su preliminarni izbori kasnije u toku godine nemaju toliko uticaja na ishod izbora kandidata, čak i ako u njima živi ogroman broj birača. Ovaj sistem stavlja fokus na pojedinačne kandidate više nego na partije i konkretne politike. Nedostatak unutarstranačke kohezije može dovesti do personalizacije politike i skretanja pažnje sa ideja na lične živote i poslove kandidata. Izlaznost birača i zainteresovanost javnosti Rezultati preliminarnih izbora pokazuju da je izlaznost birača na njima znatno niža nego na opštim izborima što se delom pripisuje nezainteresovanosti i nedostatku informacija. Birači koji su bolje informisani, posvećeni i snažno privrženi partijama ili kandidatima će najverovatnije izaći na preliminarne izbore. Niska izlaznost vodi prenaglašenom uticaju male grupe birača koja zatim predstavlja ukupno stanovništvo. Kandidati bivaju primorani da usvoje ideološke i ekstremne pozicije birača tokom preliminarnih izbora. Nakon što se oni završe, kandidati se vraćaju umerenijim stavovima kako bi privukli glasove najvećeg dela biračkog tela koji uključuje centar političkog spektra i umerene pozicije. Nagla promena ideološkog pozicioniranja navodi birače na nepoverenje prema kandidatima i skeptičnost u pogledu procesa izbora predsednika.6 Izlaznost birača je generalno viša tokom preliminarnih izbora u partiji koja ima većinu u Kongresu jer su veće šanse da upravo njihov kandidat pobedi na predsedničkim izborima. Neki birači primenjuju različite strategije kako bi ojačali svoju partiju ili kandida6

Alan I. Abramowitz, “The Impact of President Debate Voter Rationality.” American Journal of Political Science. 22 (August 1978.), pp. 680-690, (pristupljeno 13. aprila 2016.)

40

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

ta, pre svega u državama sa otvorenim preliminarnim izborima. Kako je politički sistem Sjedinjenih Američkih Država postajao sve više polarizovan na federalnom nivou, tako se i izlaznost na preliminarnim izborima smanjivala. Jedno od objašnjenja može biti veliki broj umerenih birača koji smatraju da ne postoji odgovarajući kandidat koji bi zastupao njihove interese, te iz tog razloga ne učestvuju ni u jednim partijskim preliminarnim izborima.7

Izvor: „The Atlantic“

7

Shigeo Hirano, James M. Snyder Jr., Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere and John Mark Hansen. 2010. “Primary elections and partisan polarization in the U.S. Congress.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 20 (March): 169-191, (pristupljeno 13. aprila 2016.)

Preliminarni izbori

Izvor: Istraživački centar „Pew“

41

III NACIONALNE PARTIJSKE KONVENCIJE

Nacionalne partijske konvencije

45

Konstantin Magdić*

Nacionalne partijske konvencije 2016. godine S obzirom na značaj simbolike, partije pažljivo biraju vreme i mesto održavanja nacionalnih konvencija. Olimpijske igre, koje se održavaju ove godine u Rio de Žaneiru, naterale su partije da održe svoje konvencije neposredno pre njih kako bi zadržale odgovarajući medijski prostor. Republikanci su prvi izabrali datum svoje konvencije i ona će se održati od 18. do 21. jula.1 Ovogodišnja konvencija je zakazana znatno ranije nego prethodne dve koje su se održale u avgustu 2012. i septembru 2008. godine.2 Kako bi skrenule medijsku pažnju sa republikanaca na sebe, Demokrate su odlučile da održe svoju konvenciju samo nedelju dana kasnije od 26. do 28. jula.3 Republikanci su za mesto konvencije odabrali Klivlend, u Ohaju, jednoj od najvažnijih država za izbor predsednika SAD-a.4 Ohajo je jedna od tzv. “swing states”, u kojima nijedna partija nema dominantu podršku. Takve * [email protected] The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Par-

1

ty Conventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service, 2015, p. 18. 2 Henry J. Gomez, Dates set for Republican National Convention in Cleveland; 4-day event will run July 18-21, dostupno na: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/01/dates_ set_for_2016_republican.html, (pristupljeno 27. aprila 2016.) 3

The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Conventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service, 2015, p. 18. 4 Ibidem.

46

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

države istorijski imaju presudan uticaj na izbor predsednika. Još od Linkolna 1860. godine nijedan republikanac nije pobedio na izborima, a da prethodno nije pobedio na preliminarnim izborima u Ohaju.5 Poslednji predsednik SAD-a koji nije pobedio u Ohaju je bio demokrata, Džon F. Kenedi 1960. godine.6 Nesumnjivo je da je Ohajo pravi izbor za Republikansku partiju. Demokrate su se odlučile za Filadelfiju, u Pensilvaniji, jedan od najvažnijih gradova u istoriji SAD-a.7 U Filadelfiji je održan Prvi Kontinentalni kongres i potpisana su dva najvažnija politička dokumenta u istoriji SAD-a, Deklaracija nezavisnosti i Ustav SAD. Takođe, jedna četvrtina građana SAD-a živi na samo pet sati vožnje od Filadelfije.8 O atraktivnosti Filadelfije najbolje govori to da su u njoj demokrate već dva puta organizovale svoju konvenciju, dok su Republikanci to učinili impresivnih šest puta do sada, uključujući i svoju prvu konvenciju 1856. godine.9 Na konvenciji Demokratske partije 2008. godine organizovanoj u ovom gradu, Barak Obama održao je svoj čuveni govor “A More Perfect Union”10 koji je značajno doprineo njegovoj pobedi. Bogata turistička ponuda grada i konvencija demokrata 5

Michael Scherer, 5 Reasons to Be Delighted and Worried About a GOP Convention in Cleveland, dostupno na: http://time.com/2966830/2016republican-convention-cleveland/, (pristupljeno 27. aprila 2016.) 6 Ibidem. 7 The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Conventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service, 2015, p. 18. 8 Larry Olmsted, Why The Democratic National Convention Is Coming To Philadelphia, dostupno na: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ larryolmsted/2016/02/25/why-the-democratic-national-committee-is-coming-to-philadelphia/#4f2fd9c16005, (pristupljeno 27. aprila 2016.) 9 Ibidem 10 Larry Olmsted, Why The Democratic National Convention Is Coming To Philadelphia, dostupno na: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ larryolmsted/2016/02/25/why-the-democratic-national-commit-

Nacionalne partijske konvencije

47

nesumnjivo će privući mnoge posetioce, kao i adekvatnu medijsku pažnju celokupnom događaju. Tokom prvog dana u hotelima koji se nalaze u blizini hale održava se na stotine raznih neformalnih događaja na kojima se članovi i simpatizeri partije upoznaju i diskutuju o budućnosti partijske politike. To je ono što ovaj događaj čini jedinstvenim. Samo jedanput svake četiri godine se ovoliki broj članova partije okupi na jednom mestu. U samoj dvorani gde se održava konvencija, govori se održavaju gotovo bez prestanka. Tokom dana, javnosti se obraćaju manje značajni partijski funkcioneri, dok su večernji, udarni termini koje često sve televizije prenose uživo rezervisani za značajne, ugledne i poštovane članove partije. Prvi dan se završava uvodnim govorom od strane jednog od najuticajnijih vođa partije, koji u njemu obično naglašava uspehe partije, dok istovremeno kritikuje suprotni tabor. Ukoliko na konvenciji postoji više potencijalnih kandidata, govornik će prisutne podsetiti na važnost jedinstva partije i usmeriti ih da mirnim putem rešavaju sukobe. Drugog dana, većina delegata mora da izglasa partijsku platformu. Platforma je politički plan za naredne četiri godine. U njoj se nalaze konkretni stavovi partije o ključni aktuelnim domaćim i spoljnopolitičkim pitanjima, kao i skup ideja za koje se partija zalaže. Uglavnom su pre konvencije već sva ključna pitanja usaglašena unutar partije, tako da su same diskusije na tu temu za vreme konvencije simbolične prirode. Platforme nemaju veliku težinu budući da ne obavezuju kandidate. Za nominaciju za predsednika delegati glasaju trećeg dana. Predstavnici jedne po jedne države izlaze za govornicu i predlažu kandidate za nominaciju – one koji su pobedili na preliminarnim izborima u njihovoj državi. Kada tee-is-coming-to-philadelphia/#4f2fd9c16005, (pristupljeno 27. aprila 2016.)

48

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

se završi proces nominovanja, predstavnici država ponovo izlaze za govornicu i glasaju za jednog ili više kandidata, to jest raspodeljuju delegate kandidatima u skladu sa rezultatima preliminarnih izbora. Još od 1952. godine nije se desilo da je bio potreban drugi krug glasanja kako bi jedan kandidat dobio nominaciju za predsednika.11 Poslednjeg, četvrtog dana, delegati glasaju za izbor potpredsednika, istim postupkom kojim su glasali za predsedničku nominaciju. Ustaljena je praksa da pred­sednički kandidati pre početka konvencije predstave svog kandidata za potpredsednika. Odabir kandidata za potpredsednika nije uopšte jednostavan zadatak. Istorijski gledano, jedna trećina, tačnije četrnaest predsednika, prethodno je obavljalo funkciju potpredsednika, zbog čega se smatra da je ova funkcija priprema za poziciju predsednika. Potpredsednik je predsednikov najvažniji partner u kampanji, a njegov izbor treba da pomogne kandidatu da bude izabran na predsedničku poziciju. Zato se najčešće bira takav potpredsednik koji može da nadomesti neke nedostatke koji predsednički kandidat poseduje. Ti razlozi mogu biti geografski – ako je predsednik sa Istoka, obično se bira potpredsenik sa Zapada. Ukoliko je partija podeljena po nekom ideološkom pitanju, potpredsednik može biti izabran zbog svog suprotnog stava u odnosu na predsedničkog kandidata, kako bi se na taj način izbalansirale pozicije i partija ujedinila. Iskustvo obavljanja javne funkcije je jedan od ključnih faktora koje birači uzimaju u obzir tokom kampanje.12 Ukoliko predsedničkom kandidatu nedostaje iskustva, on može za potpredsedni11

Nelson W. Polsby,  Aaron Wildavsky, Steven E. Schier, David A. Hopkins, Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland, 2012, p. 144 12 Josh Clinton, Drew Engelhardt, John Lapinski, What Are Voters Looking for in 2016 Presidential Candidates?, dostupno na: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/what-are-voters-

Nacionalne partijske konvencije

49

ka izabrati bivšeg člana Kongresa koji poseduje ogromno iskustvo i na taj način umanjiti svoje neiskustvo u očima birača. Ako je predsednički kandidat muškarac, može izabrati ženu za svog potpredsenika, a može izabrati i svog stranačkog rivala sa preliminarnih izbora kako bi ujedinio partiju. Takođe, može izabrati ličnost koja je popularna u jednoj od “swing state” država, i na taj način osigurati pobedu u državi za koju proceni da je ključna za pobedu na izborima. Poslednji dan se završava velikim govorom kandidata za potpredsednika i predsednika pred prepunom dvoranom čiji auditorijum čini više desetina hiljada građana. Tradicionalno, po završetku govora puštaju se baloni sa plafona hale i time označava kraj preliminarnih izbora, nakon čega konačna izborna trka može da počne.

looking-2016-presidential-candidates-n490706, (pristupljeno 27. aprila 2016.)

50

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Marko Despotović*

Nacionalne konvencije i mediji Nacionalne konvencije predstavljaju događaje na kojima se biraju kandidati Republikanske i Demokratske stranke za predsedničke izbore koji će se ove godine održati 8. novembra. Republikanska stranka će svoju konvenciju organizovati u Kviken Louns Areni u Klivlendu (Ohajo) od 18. do 21. jula, dok će Demokratska stranka svoju konvenciju održati u Vels Fargo Centru u Filadelfiji (Pensilvanija) od 25. do 28. jula. Time se nastavlja tradicija da se konvencije najčešće iz praktičnih razloga održavaju u dvoranama NBA ili NHL klubova. S obzirom na važnost koju nacionalne konvencije nose, ovaj događaj prati i veliki broj medija. Prvi radijski prenos nacionalne konvencije organizovan je 1924, dok je prvi televizijski prenos održan 1948. godine. Za Republikansku nacionalnu konvenciju u julu biće akreditovano oko 15 hiljada novinara i samo su Olimpijske igre po tom kriterijumu ispred.1 Iz bezbednosnih razloga, ove godine će američka Tajna služba (U. S. Secret Service) imati značajnu ulogu u dodeljivanju akreditacija novinarima.2 Zbog dužine trajanja konvencije, prenose se uglavnom najvažniji momenti, a tokom dana idu specijalne emisije *

[email protected] http://convention.gop/about 2 Hadas Gold, “Secret Service takes on new credentialing role for conventions”, Politico, April 15, 2016, dostupno na: http://www. politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/04/secret-service-takes-onnew-credentialing-role-for-conventions-222017, (pristupljeno 20. aprila 2016.) 1

Nacionalne partijske konvencije

51

posvećene kandidatima i strankama. Najvažnije TV kuće koje rade prenos i prave specijalne emisije su NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox i PBS. Sve popularniji su i strimovi preko interneta koje organizuju same stranke i drugi mediji. Nacionalna konvencija često ima samo ceremonijalnu i formalnu ulogu jer je pobednik, kandidat stranke na predsedničkim izborima, već unapred poznat i to donekle umanjuje stepen zainteresovanosti američkih građana za ovaj događaj.

52

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Vilijam Najt*3

Pregovaračke nacionalne konvencije: da li može da dođe do pregovaračke konvencije 2016? Pre nego što se upustimo u analizu mogućnosti pregovaračke konvencije, treba objasniti uslove pod kojima do nje dolazi. Pregovaračka konvencija se nameće kao opcija ukoliko nema jasnih favorita u jednoj ili obe partije, tačnije, ukoliko ni jedan od kandidat ne osvoji dovoljan broj delegata. Kod demokrata u izbornom ciklusu 2016. godine neophodan broj delegata je 2382, dok je kod republikanaca 1237. Broj delegata čiju podršku kandidati osvoje tokom preliminarnih izbora utvrđuje da li uopšte postoje favoriti. Procedura pregovaračkih konvencija se najčešće sastoji iz serija ponovnog glasanja delegata koji više nisu u obavezi da glasaju za kandidate kojima su obećali podršku pre prvog kruga glasanja. Mogućnost ovakve konvencije se najčešće razmatra nakon „super utorka“ budući da se tada dodeljuje najveći broj delegata što utiče na pojavu favorita. Pre nego što su preliminarni izbori postali deo procedure, veliki broj predsedničkih izbora rešavan je upravo pregovaračkim konvencijama. Poslednji kandidat koji je na ovaj način osvojio nominaciju svoje partije, a zatim postao i predsednik SAD-a, bio je Frenklin D. Ruzvelt 1932. godine. Partije danas deluju preventivno u pogledu pregovaračkih konvencija. Na predsedničkim izborima 2008. je u Demokratskoj stranci došlo do slične situacije kakvu * [email protected]

Nacionalne partijske konvencije

53

imamo ove godine, uključujući čak i jednog istog kandidata. Posle „super utorka“, Barak Obama je imao neznatnu prednost nad konkurentom Hilari Klinton, što je otvorilo mogućnost za održavanje pregovaračke konvencije. Kada je Hauard Din, tadašnji predsednik Demokratske nacionalne konvencije, postao svestan tih izgleda, uticao je na neopredeljene super-delegate da podrže bilo kojeg kandidata kako bi sprečili takav ishod. Nakon svega navedenog, može se zaključiti da se ovogodišnji izbori razlikuju od svih prethodnih, posebno u pogledu kandidata između kojih postoje još veće razlike nakon rezultata „super utorka“. Iako možda deluje da je lako predvideti ishod, predsednički izbori 2016. su daleko od uobičajenih. Berni Sanders, samoproklamovani socijalista, i Donald Tramp, preduzetnik čije izjave nisu ni blizu političke korektnosti, pokazali su se kao izuzetno popularni među biračima. Tramp je trenutno vodeći kandidat Republikanske partije i ima sve izglede za osvajanje nominacije. Sa druge strane, bez obzira na to što Hilari Klinton deluje nepobedivo, preliminarni izbori i dalje nisu gotovi i Sanders još uvek ima šansu. U prošlosti je bilo država koje naginju ka levoj strani spektra i koje tradicionalno nemaju veliku izlaznost u preliminarnoj fazi, ali ovogodišnji izbori svakako nisu tradicionalni. Postoji mogućnost da liberali u ovim državama reaguju na Trampovo narušavanje njihovih interesa glasanjem za manje popularnog kandidata. U demokratskom taboru, moguće je da birači smatraju Hilari previše umerenom opcijom te zbog toga daju svoj glas Sandersu. Uzimajući u obzir sve faktore koji utiču na ishod izbore, teško je proceniti da li će na kraju doći do pregovaračkih konvencija. Poslednja pregovaračka konvencija desila se 1952. godine i mora se uzeti u obzir prilikom ocenjivanja izgleda za ovu godinu. Iako je Donald Tramp osvojio podršku pozamašnog broja delegata, to i dalje nije dovoljno za osvajanje nominacije. Za druge kandidate, Teda Kruza i

54

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Džona Kejsika, ne postoji matematička mogućnost osvajanja dovoljnog broja delegata za nominaciju, ali oni i dalje ne odustaju od trke. Posledica toga jeste potencijalno oduzimanje delegata Trampu, a ukoliko se obrazac nastavi i on ne osvoji potrebnih 1.237 delegata, nacionalna konvencija Republikanaca moraće da bude pregovaračka. Dakle, moguće je da će u julu delegati nominovati nekog drugog kandidata, a ne dosadašnjeg favorita. Na izborima 1952. godine, kandidatima je bilo potrebno 1,230 delegata kako bi osvojili nominaciju. Na pregovaračkoj nacionalnoj konvenciji održana su tri kruga glasanja, a magični broj za pobedu bio je 615.5 glasova. Ništa se nije promenilo nakon prvog kruga glasanja, ali je treći bio presudan. Naime, nakon drugog kruga, prisutni su napravili pauzu za večeru, a Truman i ostali članovi partije iskoristili su priliku da razgovaraju sa kandidatima. Pokušali su da ih ubede u to da stranka treba da ostane ujedinjena, a ne da se dalje deli. Uspeli su u svojoj nameri i nekoliko kandidata je napustilo trku i gotovo prepustilo nominaciju Stivensonu. U poređenju sa razvojem događaja 1952, teško je zamisliti da će Republikanska partija biti otvorena za sličnu saradnju ukoliko ove godine dođe do pregovaračke nacionalne konvencije (časopis Tajm, 2016). Literatura 1. Kamarck, Elaine. “What Is a Brokered Convention, and Are We Going to Have One in 2016?” The Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution, 12 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. 2. Prokop, Andrew. “The GOP’s Nuclear Option: How Trump Could Be Denied the Nomination Even with a Majority.” Vox. Vox, 24 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. 3. Rothman, Lily, and Heather Jones. “Confused about How Trump Could Be Denied the Republican Nomination? Let 1952 Be Your Guide.” Time. Time, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

IV KAMPANJE

Kampanje

57

Vajat Amaral*4

Kampanje u preliminarnim izborima Kampanje su ključni deo svakih preliminarnih izbora. Predsednik SAD-a je najmoćnija osoba u zemlji, a prvi korak ka preuzimanju ove pozicije je osvajanje nominacije. Važnost kampanje leži u njenom presudnom uticaju na ishod svih napora kandidata. Kampanje se planiraju strateški da bi naglašavale prednosti, a umanjivale mane kandidata. Zbog svog značaja, predstavljaju jedan od ključnih elemenata predsedničke trke i čak i najmanji detalji moraju biti pažljivo i precizno osmišljeni. Svaka predsednička kampanja ima više bitnih komponenti koje teže da uvećaju vidljivost kandidata i podršku koju uživaju. U najvećem broju slučajeva, svaki publicitet tokom preliminarne sezone je dobar. U ovom tekstu ću se baviti različitim aspektima preliminarnih kampanja čiji je osnovni cilj isticanje pojedinačnih kandidata i njihovo međusobno diferenciranje. Da bismo razumeli preliminarne kampanje, važno je pratiti razvoj modernih kampanja koje uključuju različita sredstva, od televizije do interneta i društvenih mreža. Još jedan bitan element jeste struktura kampanja, budući da zapravo postoji pedeset različitih procesa u pojedinačnim državama pod krovnom federalnom kampanjom, uz kampanje u Portoriku, Guamu i drugim teritorijama SAD. Konačno, za sve aktivnosti moraju biti obezbeđena sredstva, te su fi* [email protected]; [email protected]

58

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

nansijski izvori krucijalni za uspešnu kampanju u sezoni preliminarnih izbora. Za vreme preliminarnih izbora, kandidati uglavnom liče jedan na drugog. Budući da dolaze iz istih partija, logično je da dele neke stavove, te u cilju diferenciranja teže da izrazito naglašavaju neznatne razlike koje postoje između njih. Tokom opštih izbora, suprotstavljena ideološka stanovišta dovode do jasnih i konkretnih razlika, što nije slučaj u preliminarnoj sezoni. Zbog toga se velika pažnja posvećuje isticanju postojećih malih razlika između kandidata istih partija. Kako navodi Semjuel Popkin (Samuel L. Popkin), kandidati teže da promovišu sebe, a da svoje konkurente predstave u negativnom svetlu (Popkin, 2002). Kandidati, dakle, uspostavljaju svoj identitet istovremeno se distancirajući od konkurencije. Između ostalog, cilj svakog kandidata je i da potkopa kredibilitet, ličnost i temelje vizije svojih protivnika. Stvarajući jasne podele, ovim metodama lakše privlače pažnju na sebe. Prepoznatljivost je izuzetno značajna i kandidati nastoje da izgrade sopstveni identitet, kao i da osiguraju blok glasača unutar partije. Jedna od najznačajnijih komponenti kampanje, kao što je već pomenuto, jesu finansije. Ukoliko nestane novca, kandidati nisu u mogućnosti da ispune nijedan od svojih ciljeva. Svaki momenat kampanje košta, od najmanjih sitnica poput bedževa, sve do luksuznih putovanja širom zemlje kako bi se kampanja vodila u svakoj od pojedinačnih država (Adams and Settle, 1978). Stoga je neophodno konstantno prikupljanje sredstava kako bi se obezbedio najveći mogući pristup i kontakt sa biračima. Veoma dugo je javno finansiranje predsedničkih kandidata bilo uobičajeno, ali se situacija značajno izmenila nakon istorijske presude Vrhovnog suda SAD-a u slučaju Građani protiv Savezne izborne komisije 2010. godine (Fuller, 2014). Slučaj pred Vrhovnim sudom doveo je do zaštite donacija korporacija i sindikata pod zastavom Prvog aman-

Kampanje

59

dmana. Rezultat toga je da danas ne postoji gornja granica količine novca koju „Super PACs“ (Political Action Committees – grupe za lobiranje) smeju da prikupe za kandidate. Super PACs predstavljaju rupu u zakonu, oni su tehnički nezavisni i nisu povezani sa kandidatama, ali je činjenica da njihova sredstva doprinose kampanji pojedinačnih kandidata. U modernim kampanjama novac igra ogromnu ulogu u dobijanju dragocenog medijskog prostora (The Editorial Board, 2015).

Izvor: Šerer, Rebala i Vilson, 2014.

Na grafiku iznad prikazani su trendovi trošenja u kampanjama za mesta u Kongresu SAD-a budući da dugoročni podaci za preliminarne izbore nisu dostupni. Troškovi kampanja su u konstantnom porastu, a njihov zabeležen rast je čak veći od rasta prihoda, troškova zdravstvenog osiguranja i bruto domaćeg proizvoda SAD-a (Scherer, Rebala and Wilson, 2014). Od ishoda kampanje zavisi ko će voditi Sjedinjene Američke Države. Rezultat uspešne kampanje je izborna pobeda, a svaki drugi ishod može se smatrati porazom, te su kampanje od presudnog značaja za kandidate tokom preliminarnih izbora. Dodatno, snažna kampanja može

60

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

olakšati prelaz na opšte izbore jer stvara infrastrukturu postavljanjem ključnih članova na važna mesta. Kampanje imaju izuzetan značaj i vrše suštinski uticaj kako na kontekst izbora predsedničkih kandidata obe partije, tako i na kasniji ishod opštih izbora. Literatura 1. Adams, B., & Settle, R. (1978). The Economic Theory of Regulation and Public Financing of Presidential Elections. Journal of Political Economy , 86 (2). 2. Fuller, J. (2014, April 3). From George Washington to Shaun McCutcheon: A brief-ish history of campaign finance reform. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from The Washington Post: https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/03/a-history-of-campaign-finance-reform-from-george-washington-toshaun-mccutcheon/ 3. Popkin, S. (2012). The Candidate: What it Takes to Win – and Hold – the White House. New York: Oxford University Press. 4. Scherer, M., Rebala, P., & Wilson, C. (2014, October 23). The Incredible Rise in Campaign Spending. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from TIME Magazine: http://time.com/3534117/the-incrediblerise-in-campaign-spending/ 5. The Editorial Board. (2015, April 27). How Super PACs Can Run Campaigns. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/opinion/how-super-pacs-can-run-campaigns.html

V KANDIDATI

Kandidati

63

Keli Melton*

Hilari Klinton Hilari Rodam Klinton (Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) je najavila svoju drugu kandidaturu za predsednika u dvominutnom video snimku objavljenom 12. aprila 2015. godine. Kao član Demokratske Partije sa verovatno najvećim političkim iskustvom, brzo i snažno je započela svoju kampanju i i dalje nastavlja istim tempom. Klintonova ima iskustva i kao advokat i političar budući da je služila kao američki senator iz Njujorka od 2001. do 2009. godine, zatim na mestu državnog sekretara (Secretary of State) do 2013, a ne smemo zanemariti ni njenu poziciju prve dame Sjedinjenih Američkih Država za vreme administracije Bila Klintona od 1993. do 2001. godine. Posle završene Pravne škole na Univerzitetu Jejl 1973. godine, započela svoju pravnu karijeru u Fondu za zaštitu dece u Masačusetsu.1 Posle afere „Votergejt“, preselila se u Arkanzas gde je predavala na Pravnom fakultetu Univerziteta u Arkanzasu. Na samom početku aktivističkih godina bila je zagovornik građanskih prava i prava žena, a to su oblasti u kojima i danas igra izuzetno važnu ulogu. Osnovni program Hilari Klinton na predsedničkim izborima 2016. sadrži pitanja klimatskih promena i energetskih izvora, reforme krivičnog sistema, prevencije oružanog nasilja, imigracije, nacionalne bezbednosti i prava žena.2 * [email protected] 1

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton, (pristupljeno 3. marta 2016) 2 Na sajtu Hillaryclinton.com *nisu predstavljena sva pitanja

64

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Klimatske promene i energetski izvori Program Hilari Klinton u ovoj oblasti ima za cilj instaliranje 500 miliona solarnih ploča koje bi usmerile Ameriku u pravcu vodeće svetske sile u pogledu čiste energije. Njen plan je da pola milijarde solarnih ploča bude ugrađeno do kraja njenog prvog mandata, u nadi da će tako sprečiti gubljenje energije u kućama, bolnicama i školama, kao i trostruko umanjiti nivo potrošnje nafte. „Plan čiste energije“ (eng. Clean Power Plan) bi trebalo da spreči 3,600 prevremenih smrtnih slučajeva i 90,000 napada astme godišnje putem smanjivanja nivoa zagađenja.3 Reforma krivičnog sistema Budući da su SAD na prvom mestu u svetu po broju ljudi u zatvorima, Klintonova planira da završi period masovnog zatvaranja putem reforme obaveznih minimalnih kazni i ukidanja privatnih zatvora. Trenutno postoji problem sa bivšim zatvorenicima koji imaju teškoće prilikom resocijaliziacije nakon izlaska. Platforma Hilari Klinton sadrži plan za rad sa tim pojedincima kako bi im se pružile potrebne veštine i znanja za ponovno uključivanje u društvo. Pored toga, za cilj ima i poboljšanje poverenja između policijskih snaga i građana kako bi se smanjio nivo nasilja. Njena kampanja je usmerena i na sprovođenje kazni za nasilne zločine, a ne samo posedovanje marihuane koje je razlog izuzetno velikog broja hapšenja zbog narkotika. Hapšenje vezano za narkotike, inače, čini većinu ukupnih hapšenja u čitavim Sjedinjenim Državama. Klintonova se nada da će ove meri staviti tačku na masovna zatvaranja. 3

Isto

Kandidati

65

Sprečavanje oružanog nasilja U svetlu terorističkih napada u SAD-u kroz oružano nasilje, kontrola naoružanja je postala izuzetno važna tema u politici. Umesto obeležavanja ovog problema kao „kontrola naoružanja“, Klintonova nudi konkretne tačke koje bi sprovela u ovoj oblasti. Na prvom mestu bi se fokusirala na proveru dosijea i biografija pojedinaca koji žele da kupe oružje, težeći da zakrpi praznine u zakonu trenutnog pravnom sistema. Jedna od njih jeste „Čarlston praznina“ koja garantuje pojedincima pravo da pazare oružje ukoliko njihova provera nije završena u roku od tri dana. Naziv je dobila po slučaju mladića u gradu Čarlston u Južnoj Karolini koji je na ovaj način kupio oružje i otvorio vatru u crkvi afroameričke zajednice, ubijajući pritom devet ljudi. Imigracione reforme Platforma Hilari Klinton kao jednu od osnova ističe očuvanje porodice. Njen plan jeste da sprovede kompleksnu reformu imigracionog sistema kako bi omogućila da se porodice drže zajedno, kao i da radnici slobodno rade u svojim zajednicama. Obećala je da će štititi porodice imigranata ukoliko Kongres odbije da reaguje tako što će voditi afirmativne akcije i težiti da olakša porodicama američkih građana da i sami dobiju državljanstvo SAD-a. Pored toga, planira da sprovede ciljani program imigracija. Protivi se zadržavanju porodica na granicama i veruje da onima koji dospeju do granice SAD-a treba pružiti šansu promovisanjem naturalizacije i proširivanjem pristupa zdravstvenoj zaštiti svim porodicama, uključujući i imigrante. Nacionalna bezbednost Hilari Klinton se pokazala kao umereniji demokrata i zagovarač ratnog delovanja (eng. war hawk) i nastoji da ojača američku vojsku i nacionalnu bezbednost. Budući

66

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

da se zalaže za nuklearni sporazum sa Iranom, Klintonova je izjavila da nikada neće dozvoliti da Iran stekne nuklearno oružje kako bi bezbednost Izraela bila očuvana. Pored toga, najavila je pobedu nad Islamskom državom u Iraku i Siriji (ISIS) koju planira da ostvari izgradnjom kapaciteta iračke vojske i vlade, kao i pružanjem podrške demokratiji i bezbednosti Avganistana i dodatno unapređivanjem stabilnosti u Libiji i Jemenu. Još jedna od tačaka njenog programa spoljne politike tiče se odgovornosti Kine za akte agresije koje je počinila u regionu. Zalaže se za promovisanje pravila i institucija u Aziji uz pomoć međunarodnih prijatelja i saveznika koji bi podstakli Kinu da deluje odgovorno u pogledu ljudskih prava, trgovine i klimatskih promena. Konačno, Klintonova teži da umanji zavisnost Evrope od ruske nafte, istovremeno insistirajući na tome da Putin preuzme odgovornost za svoje poteze u cilju odvraćanja potencijalnih vojnih akcija Rusije u Evropi.4 Prava žena i jednake mogućnosti Hilari Klinton je snažan zagovornik rodne ravnopravnosti i želi da, pre svega, obezbedi jednake plate ženama, a posebno ženama afroameričkog porekla. Planira da omogući usvajanje Zakona o pravičnim platama (eng. Paycheck Fairness Act) koji je predložila u Senatu a koji bi pružio ženama sredstva za borbu protiv diskriminacije na radnom mestu. Dodatno, zalaže se za zaštitu zdravlja žena i reproduktivnog zdravlja i podržava rad organizacije Planirano roditeljstvo5 u domenu kontracepcije i legalnog abortusa. Pored toga, teži da zaštiti Zakon Affordable Care Act koji zabranjuje osiguravajućim agencijama svaki oblik diskriminacije žena. 4

Isto Eng. Planned Parenthood, nevladina organizacija koja se bavi istraživanjima i savetovanjem u oblasti kontracepcije, rađanja i reproduktivnog zdravlja (prim. prev.)

5

Kandidati

67

Stefan Tasić* i Edin Sinanović**

Berni Sanders Biografija Berni Sanders je rođen 8. septembra 1941. godine u Bruklinu, Njujork.1 Njegov otac dolazi iz jevrejske porodice koja je živela u Poljskoj za vreme Drugog svetskog rata. Usled holokausta Eli je izgubio mnogo članova svoje porodice i napustio je Poljsku kako bi spasio svoj život. Sanders stariji napustio je srednju školu kako bi izdržavao svoju porodicu, ali nikada nije uspeo da zaradi mnogo novca. Njegova majka Doroti ceo život je želela da živi u sopstvenoj kući, ali je Berni zajedno sa svojim starijim bratom Larijem odrastao u troiposobnom stanu koji je porodica Sanders iznajmljivala. Po Bernijevim rečima, nedostatak novca izazivao je mnogobrojne svađe u okviru porodice, a pogotovo između njegovih roditelja.2 Lari i Berni Sanders upisali su srednju školu u Njujorku. Bernijevi uspesi mogli su već tada da se primete. Osim što je bio dobar student, pisao je za školske novine, bio školski kapiten maratonskog tima, a zajedno sa svojim vršnjacima osvojio je državno prvenstvo u košarci. Upravo u srednjškolskim danima Berni je prvi put iskusio po

*

[email protected]

** [email protected] 1

Congress, SANDERS, Bernard, (1941 – ), Dostupno na: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s000033 (Pristupljeno: 19.03.2016) 2 Feelthebern, WHO IS BERNIE SANDERS?, Available from: http:// feelthebern.org/who-is-bernie-sanders/ (Accessed: 19.03.2016)

68

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

litiku. U trci za predsednika učeničkog parlamenta je izgubio, ali je postao predstavnik svog razreda. Nažalost, nakon što je upisao fakultet u Bruklinu, njegova majka je umrla u 46-toj godini života nakon druge neuspele operacije srca. Posle ovog iskustva Berni je odlučio da se preseli u Čikago gde je nastavio svoje fakultetsko obrazovanje.3 U Čikagu je postao aktivan borac za ljudska prava. Poznat je protest koji je organizovao u januaru 1962. godine. Studenti su seli ispred kancelarije Dr Džordža Bidla, upravnika Univerziteta i tako iskazali nezadovoljstvo prema rasističkoj segragaciji prilikom dodeljivanja mesta u domu za studente crne boje kože.4 Napokon, nakon što je diplomirao 1964. godine, Berni Sanders se preselio u Vermont kupivši zemlju za 2.500$. U Vermontu Sanders je naišao na malu, antiratnu progresivnu Liberalnu unionističku partiju, pa je odlučio da joj se priključi. Na početku političke karijere dva puta se takmičio na izborima za mesto u senatu i jednom za poziciju guvernera Vermonta, ali nije uspeo da pređe više od 6% glasova na tim izborima. Najzad, 1981. godine Sanders se borio za mesto gradonačelnika grada Burlingtona i pobedio sa samo deset glasova prednosti. Još tri puta je izabran na ovu funkciju pre nego što je odlučio da postane kandidat za kongresmena.5 Bio je član Predstavničkog doma američkog Kongresa od 1990. godine kao nezavisni kandidat6 kritikujući obe partije kada je smatrao da su

3

Ibidem. Dekol, BERNIE SANDERS LEADS 1962 SIT-IN,Bleak beauty blog, Dostupno na: https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/berniesanders-leads-1963-sit-in/ (Pristupljeno 19.03.2016) 5 Ibid. 6 Nije bio pripadnik ni demokratske ni republikanske političke partije. 4

Kandidati

69

grešile.7 Boreći se za mesto u Senatu 2006. godine, Sanders se predstavio kao demokratski socijalista i tako pobedio republikanskog biznismena Ričarda Taranta, iako je imao znatno manja sredstva za finansiranje kampanje.8 Konačno, Sanders je objavio da će se kandidovati za predsednika SAD u aprilu 2015. godine. Odlučeno je da će se boriti za nominaciju demokratske stranke za predsednika države, a to je po njegovom mišljenju bilo mnogo praktičnije nego da se bori kao nezavisni kandidat. Dodatno, Sandersu je značilo to što će moći da učestvuje u debatama u okviru demokratske stranke pri borbi za nominaciju.9 Profil kandidata Kako bismo jasno predstavili Sandersa kao kandidata za predsednika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, najpre moramo naglasiti njegovo političko iskustvo. Sanders je do danas predstavljao američki narod ukupno 34 godine.10 Na skali od -10 do 10, gde -10 predstavlja liberalno shvatanje, a +10 konzervativno, Sanders je ocenjen sa -10 kada su u pitanja ljudska prava, -8 za domaća pitanja, -8 za pristup ekonomskim problemima i -8 za pitanja odbrane i spoljne politike. Data skala predstavljena na vebsajtu InsideGov-a prikazuje Sandersa kao veoma liberalnog političara. Štaviše, samo je Džil Stajn ocenjena kao nešto liberalnija.11 Sanders se u odnosu na druge kandidate razlikuje na osnovu mnogih pokazatelja. Ovde ćemo navesti tri koja sma7

Biography, Bernie Sanders, Biography, Dostupno na: http://www. biography.com/people/bernie-sanders (Pristupljeno: 20.03.2016) 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 InsideGov, Bernie Sanders – Background, InsideGov, Dostupno na: http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/35/Bernie-Sanders (Pristupljeno 20.03.2016) 11 InsideGov, Bernie Sanders – Issues, InsideGovhttp://presidentialcandidates.insidegov.com/l/35/Bernie-Sanders (Pristupljeno: 20. 03. 2016)

70

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

tramo veoma značajnim. Najpre, utisak je ostavljen da je Sanders uspevao na svojim govorima tokom kampanje okupi najveću publiku. Tako je u Bostonu govorio pred 20.000 ljudi. Drugo, svoju karijeru izgradio je van demokratske i republikanske partije, pa se stoga na neki način, iako se bori za nominaciju u okviru demokratske stranke, predstavlja kao nezavisni kandidat.12 Treće, njegov program se dosta razlikuje od programa drugih kandidata. Naime, on pominje neophodnost reforme Vol strita, legalizaciju marihuane, oslobađanje plaćanja školarina i obezbeđivanje zdravstvenog osiguranja za sve stanovnike Sjedinjenih Američkih Država.13 Glavni slogan njegove kampanje je „Budućnost u koju verujemo“.14 Njegov suparnik u borbi za nominaciju Demokratske partije je Hilari Klinton za koju se smatra da više predstavlja „predsednički materijal“. Sedam­de­ setčetvorogodišnjak koji dolazi iz druge najmanje države u SAD i predstavlja se kao demokratski socijalista po mnogima nije najbolji kandidat za nominaciju. Dodatno, Sanders je belac koji pokušava da bude predstavnik raznovrsne demokratske stranke, čiji nije pravi ni pripadnik pošto se godinama izjašnjavao kao nezavini političar. Međutim, kada se pogledaju istraživanja, Sanders pobeđuje svakog republikanskog kandidata bolje nego što bi to mogla Hilari Klinton.15 12

Sky, Bernie Sanders: Democratic Candidate Profile, Sky, 2016, Available from: http://news.sky.com/story/1632335/bernie-sanders-democratic-candidate-profile (Pristupljeno: 20.03.2016) 13 Berniesanders, Reforming Wall Street,Berniesanders, Dostupno na: https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/ (Pristupljeno: 20.03.2016) 14 Berniesanders, On the Road: ‘A Future to Believe In’¸Berniesanders, 2015. https://berniesanders.com/on-the-road-a-future-to-belie­vein/ (Pristupljeno: 20.03.2016) 15 Ros Barkan, Is Hillary Really That Much More Electable Than Bernie?, Observer, 2016, Dostupno na: http://observer.com/2016/02/is-hil-

Kandidati

71

Program Berni Sanders se ideološki identifikuje kao demokratski socijalista i mnogi aspekti politike i programa koji zagovara se mogu sagledati kroz tu prizmu. Njegov program i samo delanje sigurno je više „levo“ od onoga što smo imali prilike da vidimo na dosadašnjim preliminarnim i generalnim izborima u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama. Sanders u svojim nastupima zagovara tzv „političku revoluciju“, koju posmatra kroz reforme u oblastima koje smatra najbitnijim, a promene u njima neophodnim. On smatra da su pitanja koja obuhvata njegov program najbitnija pitanja SAD-a i da od toga kako se bude odgovorilo na njih zavisi i budućnost građana Amerike. Stubovi politike i pravci neophodnih promena za koje se zalaže Berni Sanders su: pitanje prihoda i ekonomske nejednakosti, dostupnost u visokom obrazovanju i problem studentskih dugova (kredita), obnova demokratije kroz smanjenje upliva velikog novca u politiku, povećanje minimalne cene rada, suočavanje sa klimatskim promenama, imigrantska politika, borba protiv rasne i seksualne diskriminacije, univerzalna zdravstvena zaštita, reforma „Wall Street-a“, pitanje veterana i rata i jačanje i proširivanje socijalnog osiguranja.16 Kandidat za nominaciju Demokrata smatra da je jedan od najvećih današnjih problema SAD-a ekonomska nejednakost između veoma bogatih i ostalih, koja je sada, prema njemu, najveća od 20-ih godina prošlog veka. Danas, 0.1% najbogatijih poseduje istu količinu bogatstva kao i 90% ostalih. Politika za koju se zalaže Berni Sanders u okviru ove tematike podrazumeva povećanje poreza za najbogatije pojedince i najveće korporacije, kao i stopilary-really-that-much-more-electable-than-bernie/ (Pristupljeno: 20.03.2016) 16 www.berniesanders.com/issues (Pristupljeno: 20.03.2016)

72

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

ranje izvoza profita i radnih mesta iz Amerike od strane korporacija kako bi izbegli plaćanje poreza na dobit u zemlji. Takođe, oporezovao bi špekulante sa Vol Strita za koje smatra da su uzrokovali da milioni Amerikanaca ostanu bez posla i domova.17 Zalaže se za uvođenje univerzalnog sistema zdravstvene zaštite, tzv „single-payer“ sistem, na osnovu koga će svakom poreskom obvezniku biti dostupna zdravstvena zaštita u skladu sa visinom prihoda. „Zdravstvena zaštita kao pravo, a ne privilegija.“ Smatra i da cene lekova koji se uzimaju na recept treba da budu niže kako bi ljudima kojima su potrebni bili dostupniji, nasuprot sadašnjoj situaciji u kojoj nisu i u kojoj farmaceutske kompanije zarađuju mnogo na tako visokim cenama.18 Takođe, jedan od ciljeva ekonomske politike Bernija Sandersa je i povećanje minimalne cene rada na 15$ po satu do 2020. godine. Na taj način želi da redukuje broj onih koji žive u siromaštvu i da im omogući dostojanstven život.19 Zalaže se za donošenje novih zakona kojima će se urediti poslovanje velikih finansijskih institucija i banaka, za koje kaže da su „too big to fail, too big to exist“ u obavljanju rizičnih poslova i koje smatra u dobroj meri odgovornim za posrtanje američke privrede.20 Imigrantska politika je bitan segment Sandersovog programa. Smatra da ona treba da bude pravična i humana jer je i sama Amerika nacija imigranata koji su tu došli kako bi se izborili za bolju budućnost sebe i svoje dece. Prema njemu, treba im omogućiti pristup sistemu zdravstvene zaštite, kao i olakšati legalizaciju njihovog statusa unutar SAD-a.21 Jedna od najbitnijih reformi za koju se zala17

19 20 21 18

ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid.

Kandidati

73

že, a koja je u dobroj meri dovela do velike podrške Berniju Sandersu, pre svega od mladih, jeste pristup obrazovanju. Prema Sandersu, cene školarine na javnim koledžima su previsoke. Treba se ugledati na države kao što su Norveška, Finska, Švedska ili Nemačka i omogućiti besplatno obrazovanje na državnim koledžima, gde će roditelji moći da šalju decu, u zavisnosti od visine svojih prihoda, ali bez straha da će upasti u duboka dugovanja. Takođe, u okviru obrazovanja, neophodno je rešiti i problem studentskih dugova, koji danas u velikoj meri opterećuju same studente i njihove roditelje. Dodatno, ističe da treba smanjiti kamatnu stopu na dugove za studente na dodiplomskim studijama, omogućiti refinansiranje dugovanja, a onima sa najnižim prihodima omogućiti pristup finansijskoj pomoći na federalnom, državnom i na nivou koledža.22 Što se tiče spoljne politike – rat prema ovom predsedničkom kandidatu mora da bude poslednja opcija, pre toga treba maksimalno iskoristiti diplomatske i druge aktivnosti kako bi problemi bili rešeni.23 Deo Sandersove političke ponude je i reforma sistema zatvora budući da su danas zatvori u Americi prepunjeni, ne radi se dovoljno na resocijalizaciji i u njima, na primer, ima više ljudi u zatvorima nego u Kini, najmnogoljudnijoj zemlji na svetu sa autoritarnim sistemom. Jedna od inicijativa odnosi se i na ukidanje smrtne kazne.24 Ono što Berni Sanders stalno ističe je i to što ogroman broj ljudi, pre svega mladih, ima dosijee zbog posedovanja marihuane, dok s druge strane direktori mnogih banaka nisu odgovarali za štetne ekonomske radnje i špekulativne poslove. On se zalaže za legalizaciju marihuane na federalnom nivou, i ovo je sigurno jedan od razloga zbog kojeg 22

ibid. ibid. 24 ibid. 23

74

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

ima podršku od one grupe mladih koji su liberalnije orijentisani.25 Hvatanje u koštac sa klimatskim promenama je takođe deo na koji on stavlja poseban akcenat. One su uzrokovane od strane čoveka i neophodna je svest o težini problema. U vezi sa ovim problemom, Berni Sanders u velikoj meri kritikuje Republikance za koje kaže da brane profite kompanija koje su zagađivači, umesto životne sredine. Treba investirati u čistu i održivu energiju, izvršiti promene u elektro i transportnoj infrastrukturi i predvoditi međunarodnu zajednicu u borbi sa klimatskim promenama i sve to u cilju preventivnog rešavanja problema.26 Kampanja Berni Sanders je započeo svoju kampanju neformalnom objavom 30. aprila 2015. godine. U početku, ovom kandidatu koji je i nezavisni član Kongresa sa najdužim stažom nisu davane velike šanse, međutim kako je vreme proticalo i kako se početak preliminarnih izbora bližio, njemu je podrška sve više rasla. U početku je ona dolazila pretežno od belaca, mlađih od 40 godina, studenata. Kasnije, zbog imigrantske politike i zalaganja za povećanje minimalne cene rada, raste podrška i od Hispanoamerikanaca. Sanders u svojoj kampanji i nastupima stavlja u prvi plan ono što smatra da su najveći problemi koji muče stanovništvo SAD-a a koji se i navode u njegovom programu. On u svojoj kampanji kritikuje stanovišta mnogih Republikanaca po pitanju redukcije socijalnog osiguranja, odnosa prema klimatskim promenama, abortusu, minimalnoj ceni rada i imigrantima. Najviše rasprava i političkih sukoba sa kandidatima iz Republikanske partije je imao sa vodećim Donaldom Trampom. Takođe, iako 25

ibid. ibid.

26

Kandidati

75

je na početku u jednoj od debata sa Hilari Klinton rekao da i on smatra da ne treba više potencirati njenu aferu sa mejlovima, i na taj način, u ovom pogledu stao u njenu odbranu, često su rasprave između njih po raznim pitanjima bile veoma žustre, što je i logično. Debate Na početku debata unutar Demokratske partije bilo je svega tri kandidata, znatno manje u odnosu na pretendente na nominaciju u Republikanskoj partiji. Međutim, već nakon kokusa u Ajovi, Brajan O’Mali koji je imao veoma malu podršku odustaje, nakon čega su sve oči uprte u samo dva kandidata – Bernija Sandersa i Hilari Klinton. U svim debata dominirale su teme koje i u većini slučajeva predstavljaju predmet političkih rasprava kao što su visoko obrazovanje, univerzalna zdravstvena zaštita, reforma oružja, delanje u prošlosti, ekonomska pitanja, spoljna politika i dr. Berni Sanders je u debatama stavljao akcenat na upravo ove teme koje i smatra neophodnim za promene i koje će ukoliko on postane predsednik, biti te deo tzv. “političke revolucije” koja je potrebna Americi. Ono što se može označiti kao minus Sandersu u njegovim nastupima na debatama, to je nedefinisana i nejasna spoljna politika za koju se zalaže a koju je tek kasnije nešto preciznije artikulisao. Donacije Berni Sanders se razlikuje od drugih kandidata, pre svega što je odmah na početku zabranio donacije od velikih korporacija, želeći da na taj način iskaže svoju ideološku doslednost. Ovakav potez može mu predstavljati problem na duže staze na preliminarnim izborima, ali je s druge strane predstavljao i dodatni motiv za tzv. “male” dona-

76

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

tore i donacije od 1-199 dolara da se mobilišu. Upravo su male donacije najveća finansijska podrška Bernijevoj kampanji. Prema podacima sa sajta “Crowdpac”, male donacije (1-199$) čine preko 60% ukupnih prihoda od donacija, srednje (200-2499$) oko 15%, dok velike donacije, one koje su iznad 2500 dolara, imaju udeo od oko 20 procenata.27 Takođe, on žestoko kritikuje Specijalni komitet za političko delovanje (Super Pac) i neograničen obim donacija od strane fizičkih i pravnih lica, jer smatra da na ovakav način ekonomski moćnici i korporacije guraju svoje kandidate, vrše uticaj na političke aktere i procese i podrivaju demokratiju.

www.crowdpac.com/candidates/1235/bernie-sanders

27

Kandidati

77

Milan Ranković* i Slobodan Brkić**

Donald Tramp Prema podacima sa njegovog zvaničnog vebsajta, „Donald Dž. Tramp je epitom američke priče o uspehu, on konstantno podiže standarde uspešnosti i proširuje svoja interesovanja u oblasti nekretnina, sporta i zabave. On je arhetipski preduzetnik – pregovarač bez premca“.1 Donald Tramp je rođen u Kvinsu, u Njujorku, 1946. godine. U svojoj autobiografiji navodi da je kao mali često upadao u nevolju. „Želeo sam da budem najjači u kraju, sa svima sam se kačio i ni pred kim nisam popuštao. Iskreno, pravio sam mnogo problema“.2 Usled disciplinskih kazni u „Kew Forest“ srednjoj školi, Tramp se prebacuje na Vojnu akademiju u Njujorku. Nakon mature, upisao je Univerzitet Fordam, a posle dve godine prebacio se na Univerzitet u Pensilvaniji, Poslovnu školu Vorton. Diplomirao je 1968. godine u oblasti ekonomije i nekretnina.3 Ima svoj sopstveni brend, a „Organizacija Tramp“ je predstavljena kao „jedini globalni luksuzni super-brend u nekretninama, odgovaran za neke od naj*



[email protected]

** [email protected]

Donald J. Trump, Biography, http://www.trump.com/biography/, pristupljeno: 8.3.2015 2 Donald J. Trump, Crippled America: How to make America great again, Threshold editions, 2015, p.67 3 Fox news, Donald Trump biography, objavljeno August 02,2007, http:// www.foxnews.com/story/2007/08/02/donald-trump-biography.html, (pristupljeno: 8.3.2016.) 1

78

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

poznatijih svetskih projekata. Organizacija Tramp je poznata po svom vođstvu u razvoju nekretnina, prodaje i marketinga, kao i najvišem nivou upravljanja stambenim, poslovnim i maloprodajnim objektima“.4 Majkl D’Antonio (Michael D’ Antonio) zaključuje da „...nije njegova veličina ono što ga čini interesantnim. Važnija je činjenica da je uspeo da, kao niko drugi, pretvori slavu u profit.“ 5 Neki analitičari ističu da je Trampova najjača tačka njegova usmerenost protiv establišmenta.6 Aleksandar Gajić navodi još i da je Trampov uspon „pre svega posledica gneva republikanskog elektorata i konzervativne „tihe većine“ prema politici federalne vlade“.7 Profesor Džon Mekmartri (John McMurtry) nudi objašnjenje negativnog stava establišmenta: „Trampov narativ jeste da je potrebno oporaviti američki san, dok dominantni mediji i političke elite svim snagama pokušavaju da ga proglase fašistom i katastrofalnim lažnjakom. Nešto dublje je u pitanju. Zakuvava se istorijska mržnja koja do sada nije isplivavala i nije izgovarana na političkoj sceni. Tramp je izvukao taj gnev i ponudio konkretno rešenje“. Od njegovog obećanja da će prepoloviti budžet Pentagona, preko najavljenog ukidanja korporativnih donacija usmerenih ka Kongresu, količine državnog novca koji bi veliki korporativni lobiji mogli da izgube ako on postane predsednik su nezamislive. Ali, njegovi napadači ne smeju da se dotaknu ovih eksplozivnih tema jer su i sami 4

Real estate portfolio, http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/, pristupljeno: 8.3.2016 5 Michael D’Antonio, What I learned writing Trump’s biography: My tour inside the peculiar mind of the GOP front-runner, 25.9.2015, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/donald-trumpbiography-what-i-learned-213188, pristupljeno: 8.3.2016 6 Aleksandar Gajić, Fenomen Tramp, Politika, 7.3.2016, http://www. politika.rs/scc/clanak/350388/Pogledi/Fenomen-Tramp, (pristupljeno 6.4.2016.) 7 Isto

Kandidati

79

deo problema“.8 Vladimir Vukasović ističe da je „Tramp, kao bogataško dete, imao pristup svemu što je poželeo, ali svoje poslovne prevare, sudeći po američkim medijima, nije uspeo da sakrije, kao što nije sakrio ni vulgarnost ili agresivnost. On je pripadnik elite koja ga ne voli jer joj srozava ugled previše providnim malverzacijama i otvoreno vređa ostale moćnike“.9 U zaključku o ovom predsedničkom kandidatu postavićemo isto pitanje kao i Stiven Lendman (Stephen Lendman): „Da li milijarderu treba verovati da vodi državu?“10 Možda je uspeo da pretvori slavu u profit, ali je upravljanje najmoćnijom zemljom na svetu ogromna odgovornost. Dodatno, verujemo da ne bi uspeo da se izbori sa svim problemima na domaćem terenu. Njegov nastup je privukao ljude koji su nezadovoljni postojećim stanjem i koji žele nekoga ko će se suprotstaviti establišmentu i političkim elitama. Međutim, postoji previše crnih labudova i trenutno je teško predvideti ishod kako preliminarnih, tako i opštih predsedničkih izbora.

8

Prof. John McMurtry, Joining the dots: Why the establishment hates Donald Trump, Globalresearch, 5.4.2016, http://www.globalresearch.ca/joining-the-dots-why-the-establishment-hates-donaldtrump/5518526, pristupljeno: 6.4.2016 9 Vladimir Vukasović, Toni Montana u Beloj kući, Politika, 2.4.2016, http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/352330/Pogledi/Toni-Montana-u-Beloj-kuci, (pristupljeno 7.4.2016.) 10 Stephen Lendman, Trump’s first 100 days as president, Global research, 3.4.2016, http://www.globalresearch.ca/trumps-first-100days-as-president/5518253, (pristupljeno 6.4.2016.)

80

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Konstantin Lijaković*

Ted Kruz Ted Kruz je rođen 1970. godine u Kanadi. Njegova porodica je neko vreme živela u Kalgeriju zbog poslovnih obaveza. Kruzova majka Elizabeta završila je matematiku na univerzitetu Rise, a tokom pedesetih bila je među pionirima na polju informatike. Rafael Kruz je 1957. bio prinuđen da napusti svoju domovinu Kubu. Priča njegovog oca je od velike važnosti za društveno profilisanje Kruza. Pre svega kao čovek koji je pobegao od jednog totalitarnog režima, umeo je da ceni veličinu slobodarskih institucija na kojima su nastale Sjedinjene Američke Države. Često je govorio: „Kada smo se mi suočili s progonstvom na Kubi, ja sam imao gde da pobegnem. Ako izgubimo slobodu ovde, gde ćemo otići?“1 Takođe, Ted duguje Rafaelu snažna verska ubeđenja. On često ističe značaj hrišćanstva, kako za njega lično, tako i za američku naciju uopšte. Kruz je diplomirao na Univerzitetu Prinston 1992. godine, a kasnije se usavršavao na Harvardskoj pravnoj školi koju je završio 1995. godine. Tokom studija bavio se debatom. Proglašen je za najboljeg debatera od strane “U.S. National Debating Championship” 1992. kao i “North America Debating Championship” iste godine. Radio je kao zamenik ministra pravde Teksasa od 2003. do 2008. godine, dok nije izabran za javnog pravo-

* [email protected] 1

https://www.tedcruz.org/about/, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

Kandidati

81

branioca. Na toj poziciji ostaje sve do 2013. kada, pobedivši Pola Sedlera, postaje senator. Kruz se pozicionira kao socijalno konzervativan političar. On je protivnik abortusa i legalizacije marihuane. Trenutak u kome je Vrhovni sud legalizovao istopolne brakove okarakterisao je kao jedan od najmračnijih u istoriji SAD-a.2 Međutim Kruzov ekonomski program je liberalan. Zalaže se za „flat tax“ tj. jedinstveni porez od 10% koji ne zavisi od obima imovine poreskog obveznika, kao i za porez na dobit od 16%. Rezultat ove promene bilo bi ozbiljno preispitivanje postojećeg sistema penzionog osiguranja kao i zdravstvene zaštite. Zalaže se za smanjenje moći FED-a (Federalnog sistema rezervi), čiju pogrešnu politiku vidi kao osnovni uzrok ekonomske krize iz 2008. Karakteriše ga tvrda spoljna politika. Kao senator protivio se sporazumu s Iranom, zalaže se za oštriju politiku prema Rusiji i Kini. Protivio se intervenciji u Libiji, kao i poduhvatima “izgradnje nacije” u Iraku i Avganistanu. Ted Kruz je započeo svoju predsedničku kampanju 23. marta 2015. godine u razgovoru sa studentima na Liberti Univerzitetu u Linčburgu u Virdžiniji. Od samog početka isticao je vrednosti za koje se zalaže i koje čine srž njegove kampanje za osvajanje nominacije u Republikanskoj partiji. Neke od njih su vraćanje države u okvir ustava, religijske slobode, vođenje drugačije ekonomske politike i hrišćanske vrednosti. On je sam kontinuirano u toku svoje kampanje isticao značaj hrišćanstva i hrišćanskih vrednosti, za koje se može reći da predstavljaju neizostavni deo njegovog pristupa politici i konzervativnog ideološkog spektra kome pripada. 2

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/06/27/Ted-CruzGay-­m arriage-ruling-makes-one-of-darkest-days-in-UShistory/9301435429916/, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

82

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Ono po čemu se od početka razlikovala trka unutar Republikanske partije je sigurno i broj pretendenata na nominaciju koji je bio mnogostruko veći kod republikanaca, za razliku od demokrata, gde su već nakon prvih izbora u Ajovi ostala samo dva kandidata. Upravo to je na početku trke određivalo i ko je sa kim najviše ulazio u raspravu. Kruz je u debatama najviše raspravljao sa drugim konzervativcem, Markom Rubiom. Pošto je Rubio odustao, svestan moguće ideološke sličnosti Rubiovih i njegovih birača, pozvao je birače Marka Rubia da sada glasaju za njega i tako mu pomognu u trci protiv Trampa. Takođe, od samog početka žestoko ga je napadao i Donald Tramp, pogotovo po pitanju mesta rođenja, ali i po mnogim drugim političkim linijama. Kako je podrška Trampu rasla, tako je i trka između njih dvojice postajala sve dinamičnija. Iako je i Džon Kejsik ostao u trci kao treći po broju osvojenih delegata, rasprave između Kruza i Trampa su ono što ostavlja najveći utisak u ovoj trci. Kada su u pitanju donacije ovom konzervativcu, prednjače one najveće (2500 $ i iznad). One čine preko 40 % ukupnih prihoda koji Tedu Kruzu dolaze od donacija. Nakon toga slede male donacije (1-199$) koje čine 1/3, odnosno oko 33% ukupnih finansijskih sredstava. Na trećem mestu su srednje donacije (200-2499$) kojih ima oko 25%.3

https://www.crowdpac.com/candidates/105110/ted-cruz, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

3

Kandidati

83

Stefan Tasić* i Edin Sinanović**

Marko Rubio Kratka biografija Marko Rubio je rođen 1971. godine u Majamiju, u saveznoj državi Floridi, kao sin kubanskih imigranata. Diplomirao je na Univerzitetu Floride 1993. godine, a kasnije je stekao diplomu prava na Univerzitetu u Majamiju. Svoju političku karijeru ovaj republikanac započeo je 1998. godine kada je izabran za gradskog komesara Zapadnog Majamija. Naredne godine uspeo je da se izbori za mandat kongresmena u Predstavničkom domu Floride. Njegova karijera je kontinuirano bila u usponu, da bi rezultirala njegovim najvećim dotadašnjim uspehom – 2009. je pobedio u trci za Senat SAD-a. Posle šest godina političkog delovanja u funkciji senatora, odlučio je da se 2015. godine kandiduje za nominaciju Republikanske partije za kandidata na predsedničkim izborima.1 Profil kandidata Kandidat za nominaciju Republikansku partiju Marko Rubio svakako se može ideološki smestiti na desnom polu, to jest na poziciji konzervativizma. Široka lepeza koja proističe iz njegove ideološke opredeljenosti je verovatno najznačajniji i najbitni činilac u njegovom politič* [email protected] ** [email protected] www.biography.com, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

1

84

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

kom delovanju i nastupima i u velikoj meri determiniše politiku za koju se zalaže. Prema Američkoj konzervativnoj uniji, Rubio je na osnovu glasanju u Senatu dobio najviše ocene u smislu ideološke doslednosti, dok ga je „National journal“ u 2013. godini stavio na 17. mesto najkonzervativnijih senatora. Marko Rubio je u velikoj merio osvojio mesto u Senatu zahvaljujući podršci konzervativnog pokreta „Tea party“. On se, kako kaže, bori za povratak „američkog sna“ za koji smatra da je moguć i kojeg je i sam bio deo.2 Na tom putu smatra da je neophodno sprovesti politiku konzervativnih reformi i ograničenja vlasti. Bori se protiv politike establišmenta koja se zalaže za „veliku Vladu“, osporava „Obamacare“ i osporava budžet koji se odnosi na povećanje novca za stvaranje poslova. Takođe, nije se slagao sa odlukom Vrhovnog suda da se legalizuju istopolni brakovi na federalnom nivou i smatra da tu odluku treba prepustiti državama pojedinačno. Protivnik je abortusa i legalizacije marihuane u rekreativne svrhe, ali se ne protivi upotrebi medicinskog kanabisa. U spoljnoj politici bio je čvrst zagovornik sankcija protiv Irana u vezi sa nuklearnim oružjem. Jasno je da je ovaj dijapazon ideja kompatibilan sa njegovim konzervativnim opredeljenjem. Program Marko Rubio se od 15. marta ne nalazi u trci za nominaciju Republikanske partije na izborima 2016. godine.3 Međutim, značaj koji je ostavio u samoj trci nije bio mali i stoga je jako bitno obratiti pažnju na program koji 2

www.rubio.senate.gov, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) Dara Lind, Marco Rubio just quit the race. The establishment couldn’t save him., Vox, 2016, Dostupno na: http://www.vox. com/2016/3/15/11242326/marco-rubio-drop-out, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

3

Kandidati

85

je izneo pred građane SAD-a. Kao i ostali republikanski kandidati koji su još uvek u trci (Tramp, Kruz i Kejsik), i Rubio se nalazi na desnoj strani ideološkog spektra. Od njega je jedino konzervativniji Ted Kruz, dok su nešto „liberalniji“ Donald Tramp i Džon Kejsik.4 Glavno pitanje za Rubija bilo je pitanje porodice. Po njemu, sve pozitivne vrednosti u američkom društvu dolaze iz porodičnog gnezda. Neophodno je prepoznati ulogu koju igra brak kao temelj odbrane osnovnih vrednosti i zaštititi ga raznim programima koji bi olakšali nerazvedenim roditeljima da se izbave iz siromaštva. Takođe, Rubio je želeo da pomogne farmerima uklanjajući raznorazne vladine regulacije, da zaštiti prava vlasnika oružja, da zaštiti starije građane (reformom socijalnih davanja i zdravstvenog osiguranja), da podrži male preduzetnike, oda počasti i priznanja veteranima i da pomogne radnicima u Novoj američkoj ekonomiji.5 Kampanja Pošto je 13. aprila 2015. godine obnarodovao svoju kandidaturu , Rubio je uspeo da ostane u trci još 11 meseci i nedelju dana. Za ovo vreme uspeo je da odnese pobedu u jednoj državi, Minesoti, sa čak 36,5% glasova.6 Slogan njegove kampanje glasi: „Novi američki vek.“7 Menadžer njegove kampanje bio je Teri Salivan, dok se

4

InsideGov, Marco Rubio – Issues, InsideGov, Dostupno na: http:// presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/50/Marco-Rubio, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 5 MarcoRubio, MARKO ON THE ISSUES, MarcoRubio, Dostupno na: https://marcorubio.com/issues/ 6 InsideGov, Marco Rubio – Campaign, InsideGov, Dostupno na: http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/50/Marco-Rubio, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 7 MarcoRubio, Homepage, MarcoRubio, Dostupno na: https://marcorubio.com, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

86

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

za Varena Tompkinsa smatra da je imao ogroman uticaj na kampanju.8 Teroristički napadi koji su se desili u Parizu novembra 2015. godine doprineli su ubrzavanju Rubiove kampanje u narednom periodu. Tada je izjavio da SAD neće moći da prihvate više izbeglica jer ne postoji mogućnost da urade bezbednosnu proveru ljudi koji dolaze iz Sirije.9 Po njemu, napadi u Parizu mogu se nazvati „pozitivnim napretkom“ za Amerikance. Ono što se desilo u Parizu doprinelo je fokusiranju SAD na pitanja bezbednosti i realne pretnje terorizma.10 Napokon, ne smemo zaboraviti momentum koji je Marko Rubio ostvario svojim rezultatom na izborima u Ajovi. Prema svim istraživanjima Rubio je trebalo da osvoji treće mesto (što se i desilo), ali sa daleko manjim procentom. Zapravo, Rubio se kotirao svega jedan procenat iza drugoplasiranog Donalda Trampa.11 Ipak, momentum nije uspeo da bude očuvan i Rubio je ostvario razočaravajuće rezultate u Nju Hempširu osvojivši tek peto

8

Ballotpedia, Marco Rubio presidential campaign key staff and advisors, 2016, Ballotpedia, Dostupno na: https://ballotpedia.org/Marco_Rubio_presidential_campaign_key_staff_and_advisors,_2016, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 9 Sahil Kapur, Paris Attacks Could Mark Turning Point in Republican Race,Bloomberg, 2015, Dostupno na: http://www.bloomberg.com/ politics/articles/2015-11-16/paris-terrorist-attacks-could-marka-turning-point-in-the-republican-primary, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 10 Keith Brekhus, Marco Rubio Calls Paris Terrorist Attacks “A Positive Development” For Americans, PoliticusUSA, Dostupno na: http:// www.politicususa.com/2015/11/23/marco-rubio-describes-paristerrorist-attacks-a-positive-development-americans.html, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 11 Amber Phillips, Marco Rubio’s very big night in Iowa, Washington Post, 2016, Dostupno na: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ the-fix/wp/2016/02/02/marco-rubios-very-big-night-in-iowa/, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

Kandidati

87

mesto.12 Konačno, kada je izgubio izbore u Floridi, Marko Rubio odlučio je da odustane od dalje trke za predsednika SAD.13 Debate Očekivanja da će se prva debata vrteti oko Donalda Trampa su se obistinila.14 Međutim, Marko Rubio je uspeo da iz ove debate izađe kao latentni pobednik. Naime, on je uspeo da se nametne kao jedini mogući kandidat koji može da pobedi Hilari Klinton (za koju se tada očekivalo da će nesmetano pobediti u Demokratskoj partiji).15 Iako je na samom početku uspeo da ostvari određene napretke u debatama sa ostalim kandidatima republikanske partije, Marko Rubio je u trenutku svog momentuma (nakon jakog trećeg mesta u Ajovi) veoma loše nastupio u debati koja je sledila pred Nju Hempšir. U zastrašujućem naletu koji je Rubija trebalo da odvede do generalnih izbora, napad koji je znatno umanjio njegove šanse, a verovatno i onemogućio da Rubio bude nominovan, došao je od Krisa Kristija. Naime, Kristi je napomenuo da Rubio samo izgovara unapred naučene rečenice i onda je 12

Sean Gallitz, Marco Rubio “disappointed” in New Hampshire primary showing, CBS news, Dostupno na: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ marco-rubio-disappointed-in-new-hampshire-primary-showing/, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 13 Tal Kopan, Marco Rubio drops out of presidential campaign after Florida loss, CNN, 2016, Dostupno na: http://edition.cnn. com/2016/03/15/politics/marco-rubio-drops-out/, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 14 Jake Miller, GOP debate: Trump, Bush, Cruz, Paul and Rubio mix it up, CBS news, 2015, Dostupno na: http://www.cbsnews.com/ media/gop-republican-debate-august-2015-highlights-analysis/, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 15 Sahil Kapur, Why Marco Rubio May Have Won the First Republican Debate, Bloomberg, 2015, Dostupno na: http://www.bloomberg. com/politics/articles/2015-08-07/why-marco-rubio-may-havewon-the-first-republican-debate, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

88

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

to uspeo da dokaže navodeći Rubia da ponavlja nekoliko puta stvari koje je već rekao čime je sam potvrdio pređašnju opasku.16 Donacije U februaru 2016. godine Njujork Tajms je objavio presek sredstava koja su uspeli da sakupe kandidati tokom kampanje. Rubio se tada nalazio na odličnom četvrtom mestu (ako ne računamo Džeba Buša koji je ranije odustao) sa 84,6 miliona dolara. Zanimljivo je napomenuti da je do tog trenutka potrošio svega 32,9 miliona tako da je njegova kampanja tek trebalo da se razvija.17 Kampanju je završio ukupno sakupivši 92,9 miliona američkih dolara.18

16

Michael Barbaro, Once Impervious, Marco Rubio Is Diminished by a Caustic Chris Christie, The New York Times, 2016, Dostupno na: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/chris-christiemarco-rubio-gop-debate.html, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 17 The New York Times, Which Presidential Candidates Are Winning the Money Race, The New York Times, 2016, Dostupno na: http:// www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016campaign-money-race.html, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.) 18 InsideGov, Marco Rubio – Financials, InsideGov, Dostupno na: http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/50/Marco-Rubio, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

VI UNUTARPARTIJSKE PODELE

Unutrašnje podele

91

Teodora Marković* i Rajan Bartli**

Unutarpartijske podele

Uvod Koji je značaj političkih partija za predsedničke izbore? „Svi predsednici od 1852. godine do danas su bili ili iz Republikanske ili iz Demokratske partije, a u periodu posle Drugog svetskog rata, udeo dve najveće partije u ukupnim glasovima za predsednike u proseku iznosi 95 procenata. Retko kada neka od pedeset državica izabere guvernera koji nije ni Demokrata ni Republikanac.“1 Ove činjenice nam govore da Demokratska i Republikanska partija dominiraju političkim sistemom Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, a samim tim i predsedničkim * [email protected] ** [email protected]

USA ELECTIONS in Brief. BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS U.S. Department of State

1

92

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

izborima. Iako je teoretski moguće da na izborima pobedi kandidat treće strane, navikli smo da svake četvrte godine u novembru vidimo novog predsednika SAD-a koji dolazi iz jedne od ove dve stranke. Ono što je specifično kod američkih predsedničkih izbora jeste proces kroz koji obe partije prolaze kako bi nominovale kandidata za generalne izbore. Ovi – preliminarni izbori – su i sami jedna vrsta izbornog procesa. Sve do sredine juna u izbornoj godini, svaka od pojedinačnih država organizuje preliminarne izbore tokom kojih građani glasaju za nekog od kandidata koji dolaze iz iste stranke, a konačni ishod jeste nominovanje predsedničkog kandidata koji će predstavljati celu partiju na opštim izborima. To znači da je preliminarna kampanja usmerena na nominovanje jednako važna kao i opšta predsednička kampanja. Dakle, ukoliko želite da uspešno predvidite ko će biti novi predsednik (ili bar da pokušate), ključno je da razumete razlike – kako između partija, tako i unutar njih, što će i jeste cilj ovog poglavlja. Partije i njihove frakcije kojima ćemo se baviti u daljem tekstu navedene su u Tabeli 1, dok Tabela 2 obuhvata uspehe koje su partije ostvarivale na predsedničkim izborima kroz istoriju – drugim rečima, listu predsednika koje su pojedinačne partije iznedrile.

Frakcija

Napredna struja

Liberali

Centristi

Establišment

Evanđelisti

Pokret Čajanka

Libertarijanci

Partija

Demokratska

Demokratska

Demokratska

Republikanska

Republikanska

Republikanska

Republikanska

Nensi Pelosi Hilari Klinton Pol Rajan, Džon Boner, Mit Romni, Džeb Buš

Snažna i aktivna vlada, slobodna trgovina, građanske slobode, manje militaristička Socijalni liberalizam, ekonomski konzervativizam, više militaristička, manji državni troškovi Naglasak na klasičnim konzervativnim vrednostima

Slobodno tržište, minimalna država

Niži porezi, manja državna potrošnja

Rend Pol

Ted Kruz, Marko Rubio

Majk Hakabi

Berni Sanders

Univerzalna zdravstvena zaštita, borba protiv globalnog zagrevanja, reforme partija

Religijske slobode

Istaknuti pojedinci

Osnovne ideje

Tabela 1 – Unutarpartijske podele

Unutrašnje podele

93

94

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Tabela 2 – Predsednici SAD-a2

2

Br.

Predsednik

Partija Nestranačka ličnost Federalistička

Mandat

1

Džordž Vašington

2

Džon Adams

3

Tomas Džeferson

Demokratskorepublikanska

1801-1809

4

Džejms Medison

Demokratskorepublikanska

1809-1817

5

Džejms Monro

Demokratskorepublikanska

1817-1825

6

Džon Kvinsi Adams

Demokratskorepublikanska

1825-1829

7

Endru Džekson

Demokratska

1829-1837

8

Martin Van Bjuren

Demokratska

1837-1841

9

Vilijam H. Harison

Vigovci

1841-1841

10

Džon Tajler

Vigovci

1841-1845

11

Džejms K. Polk

Demokratska

1845-1849

12

Zakari Tejlor

Vigovci

1849-1850

13

Milard Filmor

Vigovci

1850-1853

14

Frenklin Pirs

Demokratska

1853-1857

15

Džejms Bjukenan

Demokratska

1857-1861

16

Abraham Linkoln

Republikanska

1861-1865

17

Endru Džonson

Demokratska

1865-1869

18

Julisiz S. Grant

Republikanska

1869-1877

19

Raderford B. Hejz

Republikanska

1877-1881

20

Džejms Garfild

Republikanska

1881

21

Čester A. Artur

Republikanska

1881-1885

1789-1797 1797-1801

Izvor  :https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/Presidents (Pristupljeno 11. aprila 2016)

95

Unutrašnje podele

22

Grover Klivlend

Demokratska

1885-1889

23

Bendžamin Harison

Republikanska

1889-1895

24

Grover Klivlend

Demokratska

1895-1897

25

Vilijam Mekinli

Republikanska

1897-1901

26

Teodor Ruzvelt

Republikanska

1901-1909

27

Vilijam Hauard Taft

Republikanska

1909-1913

28

Vudro Vilson

Demokratska

1913-1921

29

Voren G. Harding

Republikanska

1921-1923

30

Kelvin Kulidž

Republikanska

1923-1929

31

Herbert Huver

Republikanska

1929-1933

32

Frenklin D. Ruzvelt

Demokratska

1933-1945

33

Hari S. Truman

Demokratska

1945-1953

34

Dvajt D. Ajzenhauer

Republikanska

1953-1961

35

Džon F. Kenedi

Demokratska

1961-1963

36

Lindon B. Džonson

Demokratska

1963-1969

37

Ričard M. Nikson

Republikanska

1969-1974

38

Džerald R. Ford

Republikanska

1974-1977

39

Džejms Karter

Demokratska

1977-1981

40

Ronald Regan

Republikanska

1981-1989

41

Džordž H. W. Buš

Republikanska

1989-1993

42

Vilijam J. Klinton

Demokratska

1993-2001

43

Džordž V. Buš

Republikanska

2001-2009

44

Barak Obama

Demokratska

2009-2017

45

2017-

96

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Teodora Marković*1

Demokratska partija Kako je nastala Demokratska partija? Korene Demokratske partije nalazimo u grupi okupljenoj oko Tomasa Džefersona na početku devetnaestog veka poznate kao Demokratski republikanci. Partija je osnovana nakon što se otpočelo sa sprovođenjem odredbi američkog Ustava. Konkretno, postojala je podela oko tumačenja Ustava u pogledu toga ko treba da bude u vladi – Federalisti su imali elitistički, a Demokratski republikanci populistički stav po ovom pitanju. Uprkos tome što je drugi stav bio uključiviji, i dalje je bio ograničen na bele vlasnike imovine. Međutim, Demokratska partija kakvu poznajemo danas formirana je oko predsednika Endrua Džeksona tokom 1820ih i 1830ih godina. U poslednja dva veka se pokazala prilično felksibilnom i uspela je da se, uz izvesne promene, održi do danas. Demokratska partija je donela neke bitne zakone poput Devetnaestog amandmana na Ustav, Zakona o socijalnim pravima, Zakona o građanskim pravima i Zakon o pristupačnoj zdravstvenoj zaštiti (tzv. ObamaCare). Pored toga, ova stranka je iznedrila mnoge značajne ličnosti u američkoj političkoj istoriji poput Vudro Vilsona, Frenklina D. Ruzvelta i Džona F. Kenedija.

* E-mail: [email protected]

Unutrašnje podele

97

Ko su Demokrate?1 „Postoji nekoliko suštinskih uverenja koja nas drže zajedno: Demokrate veruju da smo jači zajedno nego odvojeni – da ova zemlja napreduje kada svako dobija pravednu šansu, svako ulaže napora koliko treba i svi igraju po istim pravilima.“2 Međutim, ovo ne odgovara na naše pitanje. Najjednostavnije rečeno, Demokrata bi bio ili osoba koja je, kao član Demokratske partije, izabrana na određenu javnu funkciju, ili osoba koja za iste glasa na izborima. Sada sledi komplikovanije pitanje: koje su ključne vrednosti ili uverenja koja nekoga čine Demokratom? Pogledi zasnovani na filozofiji liberalizma, uverenje da je osnovna uloga vlade nadgledanje i regulisanje ekonomije, obezbeđivanje univerzalne zdravstvene zaštite itd., ili jednostavnije formulisano, zastupanje snažne administracije sa širokom „jurisdikcijom“ – ove odlike mogu biti pripisane Demokratama. Pored ostalih uverenja, oni se zalažu: za pravo na abortus, za progresivno oporezivanje, protiv ograničenja imigracije, protiv smrtne kazne. Manje razlike upravo u pogledu ovih stavova, uzrokuju linije podela iz kojih nastaju unutarpartijske frakcije. Iako danas možemo identifikovati različite frakcije duž čitavog ideološkog spektra, u daljem tekstu će biti obrađene najbitnije i/ili najorganizovanije: Progresivna (Napredna), Liberalna i Centristička frakcija.

1

Reč Demokrata napisana velikim slovom ukazuje na pripadnika ili glasača/simpatizera Demokratske partije u SAD-u, a ne na bilo kog pobornika demokratskih ideja (prim.prev) 2 https://www.democrats.org/about/our-party (Pristupljeno 11. aprila 2016)

98

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Unutarpartijske frakcije: progresivna, liberalna i centristička „Frakcija Progresivne Demokrate Amerike osnovana je 2004. godine kako bi transformisala Demokratsku partiju i našu zemlju.“3 „Progresivne Demokrate Amerike vodi napredna vizija obnovljene nacije, potpuno integrisane u zajednicu nacija i naroda, koja poštuje vladavinu prava na svojoj teritoriji i u inostranstvu i koja je posvećena univerzalnim vrednostima ljudskog dostojanstva, pravde i poštovanja i brige prema planeti na kojoj živimo.”4 Kako Progresivci planiraju da transformišu partiju? Tako što će je ojačiti i usmeriti ka interesima građana, a ne korporativnim interesima. Progresivna frakcija je, samim tim, poznata po zagovaranju socijalne i ekonomske jednakosti, kao i principa neposredne demokratije. Pitanja kojima se najviše bave jesu univerzalna zdravstvena zaštita, borba protiv globalnog zagrevanja, zaustavljanje brzog napretka TPP-a (Transpacifičkog partnerstva – prim. prev.), okončanje ratova i okupacija i drugo. Kada kažete „ja sam liberal“, imajte na umu da će to imati različito značenje u zavisnosti od toga gde se nalazite. U Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, biti liberal generalno podrazumeva podršku visokoj državnoj potrošnji, često za različite socijalne programe poput zdravstvene zaštite i slično, dok je u Evropi značenje potpuno suprotno. Liberali u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama su takođe poznati kao aktivni borci za različite građanske slobode, promoteri slobodne trgovine i mirnije spoljne politike u pogledu upotrebe vojne sile. Drugim rečima, liberali su veliki ljubitelji državnih institucija i upotrebe 3

http://www.pdamerica.org/about-us/mission, (Pristupljeno 11. aprila 2016.) 4 http://www.pdamerica.org/about-us/basic-principles, (Pristupljeno 11. aprila 2016.)

Unutrašnje podele

99

njihove moći u organizovanju, distribuciji i redistribuciji u cilju poboljšavanja života građana. Razvoj ovih ideja ubrzan je dolaskom Velike depresije iz 1929. godine.5 Liberalne ekonomske politike nametnule su se kao rešenje velikog problema i održale su se, narednih pola veka, kao neupitan način vođenja ekonomskog sistema. Simbol ovakve politike predstavlja tzv. Novi dogovor (New Deal) predsednika Frenklina D. Ruzvelta. Danas smo svedoci još jedne promene. Uvrežen je stav da je velika državna mašinerija previše skupa i da nepotrebno opterećuje i sputava državu. Napori su, umesto toga, usmereni na umanjivanje državnih troškova. I pored toga, javnost i dalje više naginje ka levoj strani spektra što dovodi do različitih inicijativa za otklanjanje nejednakosti. Vreme će pokazati da li će ovaj trend dovesti do obnove kejnzijanske ekonomije.6 Centristi su poznati i kao Neoliberalne demokrate, Umerene demokrate ili Klinton demokrate. Ova frakcija je nastala krajem 1830ih kada su Demokrate pretrpele niz poraza u političkoj areni. Suštinski, njihov cilj je bio da usmere partiju ka centru ideološkog spektra sa osnovom u idejama socijalnog liberalizma i ekonomskog konzervativizma. Zagovaraju veću upotrebu vojne sile, kao i smanjivanje državne potrošnje u programima socijalne zaštite. Ova druga stavka je, kako se pokazalo, bila ključna razlika zahvaljujući kojoj su centristi uspeli da iznedre moćne ličnosti – kako unutar Demokratske partije, tako i u SAD-u uopšte. Deregulacija je postala popularan trend pa su Demokrate, na čelu sa pripadnicima centrističke struje, ponovo počele da pobeđuju na izborima.

5

Poznate i kao Velika depresija 1929. godine (prim. prev) Džon Majnard Kejnz (1883-1946) bio je britanski ekonomista, najpoznatiji po doprinosu u polju makroekonomije.

6

100

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Literatura: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

http://www.democrats.org http://www.pdamerica.org https://www.whitehouse.gov Meyers, William P. 2004. A Brief History of the Democratic Party USA ELECTIONS in Brief. BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS U.S. Department of State

Unutrašnje podele

101

Rajan Bartli*1

Republikanska partija Kako je nastala Republikanska partija? Partija Vigovaca (Whig Party) se raspala 1854. godine, a iz njenih ostataka nastala je Republikanska partija. Grupa bivših članova, ujedinjena u uverenju da je ideja ropstva pogrešna, stvorila je platformu za novi entitet u američkoj politici u čijem temelju se nalazila borba protiv ropstva. Kako je vreme prolazilo, stavovi o ropstvu stvarali su liniju podele u američkoj naciji, a kako su se ljudi postepeno selili na zapad, ključno pitanje bilo je uređenje novih država i dozvole odnosno zabrane ropstva u njima. Novoosnovana Republikanska partija je veoma brzo stekla popularnost na severu zemlje. Abraham Linkoln, njihov drugi kandidat po redu, izabran je za predsednika 1860. godine. Demokrate, naročito na jugu zemlje, bile su ogorčene ubeđenjima nove vlade te je došlo do domino efekta u procesu secesije država. Nedugo potom počeo je Američki građanski rat. Ko su Republikanci? Republikanci su danas generalno konzervativniji od svojih rivala Demokrata. Temelji na kojima počiva Republikanska partija su očuvanje tradicionalnih američkih vrednosti, primena postojećih zakona, poštovanje Ustava i zagovaranje klasičnog slobodnog tržišta. U pogledu nacionalne bezbednosti, a naročito nakon terorističkih * E-mail: [email protected]

102

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

napada 11. septembra 2001, zalažu se za snažnu vojsku uz funkcionalnu graničnu kontrolu. Danas, 2016. godine, balansiranje budžeta i religijske slobode predstavljaju važna pitanja za Republikanstu stranku. Frakcije: establišment, Evanđelisti, Pokret Čajanka i libertarijanci Najveća frakcija, ujedno i najglasnija u pogledu stranačke doktrine, svakako jeste establišment. Sa ideologijom koja se vremenom menjala, današnji establišment „Velike stare partije“2 vidi svog bivšeg predsednika Ronalda Regana kao uporište i epitom ove republikanske struje. Kandidati ove frakcije naglašavaju klasične konzervativne vrednosti i obično imaju sličnu ideologiju kao i stranačka baza u datom periodu. Evanđelisti, poput ostalih religijskih grupa u Americi, obično glasaju za Republikance usled njihovog insistiranja na očuvanju religijskih sloboda u savremenom tumačenju Ustava, a naročito odredbe o religiji. U poslednjih nekoliko godina, Pokret Čajanka uživa veliku podršku unutar Republikanske partije. Naziv „Pokret čajanka“ potiče iz događaja poznatog kao Bostonska čajanka i usvojen je usled nastojanja pokreta da smanji poreze. Njegovi članovi, među kojima mnogi pripadaju kombinaciji libertarijanske i populističke ideologije, veruju da je neophodno rešiti pitanje federalnog budžeta. U tom pogledu se zalažu za smanjivanje državne potrošnje u cilju otplate javnog duga, kao i za istovremeno smanjivanje poreza. Iako libertarijanci imaju posebnu stranku u SAD-u, politički sistem kojim dominiraju dve najveće partije rezultirao je priključivanjem velikog broja libertarijanaca redovima Republikanske partije. U poslednjih nekoliko 2

Republikanska partija se u SAD-u često naziva Grand Old Party ili skraćeno GOP (prim.prev)

Unutrašnje podele

103

godina, lideri ove frakcije bili su bivši senator iz Teksasa Ron Pol i kasnije njegov sin Rend Pol. Obojica odgovaraju libertarijanskoj bazi koja je prilično liberalna u socijalnim pitanjima, a izuzetno konzervativna u pogledu fiskalne politike i zalaganja za tržišnu ekonomiju. Literatura: 6. 7.

https://gop.com/principles-for-american-renewal/ http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-partyfounded

104

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Rajan Bartli*

Unutarpartijske podele Sve glavne republikanske zverke koje su verovale u sigurnog kandidata establišmenta koji bi se obračunao sa Hilari Klinton su iznenada suočene sa novim izazovom i njihovi planovi su zauvek izmenjeni („trampovani“).1 Ovo je sezona preliminarnih izbora u Republikanskoj partiji 2016. godine. Stranka je izbrazdana rastućim linijama podela koje imaju ogroman uticaj na izbor kandidata koji će se takmičiti sa predstavnikom Demokrata. Ideja modernog konzervativizma više nije dovoljno jaka da okupi i ujedini sve libertarijance, evanđeliste, pobornike Pokreta čajanke i ostale fiskalne konzervativce nasuprot leve struje od koje zaziru. Razdori članova oko partijske politike okreću mnoge protiv establišmenta dok želja za promenama buja. Ishod jeste 2016. godina koja donosi velike izazove pred „Veliku staru partiju“ dok ujedno daje prednost kandidatu koji se protivi establišmentu. U proleće 2015. godine, većina Republikanaca bi na pitanje „kako se osećate povodom predstojećih izbora sledeće godine?“ odgovorila da su uzbuđeni zbog lagane pobede nad jedinim rivalom, bivšim državnim sekretarom Hilari Klinton. Mnogi su bili spremni da podrže preuranjeno prognozirane favorite establišmenta, Džeba Buša, bivšeg guvernera Floride, ili Marka Rubija, senatora sa * E-mail: [email protected] 1

Trumped – aluzija na republikanskog kandidata za predsednika Donalda Trampa, (prim.prev.)

Unutrašnje podele

105

Floride. Međutim, da im je u isto vreme postavljeno pitanje o oceni delovanja republikanskog Kongresa, većina bi bila nezadovoljna načinom na kojim ih partija predstavlja usled nedovoljnog rada i rezultata koje postižu. Takva pomešana osećanja su odigrala ulogu u usponu novog, nadmenog kandidata, protivnika establišmenta, koji je ponudio nešto novo partiji i ušao za trku za republikansku predsedničku nominaciju. Jednog vrelog letnjeg jutra u Njujorku, poznati poslovni magnat spustio se pokretnim stepenicama u svojoj zgradi, nazvanoj po njemu, kao i mnogo puta pre. Ako mu je i prošlo kroz glavu da je to poslednji dan života na koji je navikao, to nikada nije rekao. Ipak, nesumnjivo, kada se Donald Dž. Tramp tog dana spustio među „more“ novinara i simpatizera u holu Tramp kule na Menhetnu, čovek koji je do tada bio poznat po imperiji nekretnina, imidžu TV ličnosti i ogromnim svotama novca koje je skupio kapitalizujući navedene atribute, postao je poznat kao čovek koji je zauvek uzdrmao američku politiku. Okrenuvši novi list u svom uspešnom životu, gospodin Tramp je objavio svoju kandidaturu za predsednika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država kako bi „Ameriku ponovo učinio velikom.“2 Trampova odluka da se priključi trci na početku nije shvatana ozbiljno, ali je veoma brzo čitav svet ostao u šoku kada se ispostavilo da njegove poruke imaju odjeka i da ga narod prihvata, što su pokazali rezultati prvih anketa koje su ga stavile na prvo mesto širom SAD-a. Gotovo odmah su birači razočarani establišmentom pohrlili ka Trampu oduševljeni činjenicom da njega ne kontrolišu finansijski donatori kampanja, da je dokazani preduzetnik i (što je možda odigralo i najveću ulogu) da nije blisko povezan sa trenutnim stranačkim establišmentom. 2

Make America Great Again – zvanični slogan Trampove kampanje, (prim.prev.)

106

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Iako su mnogi prihvatali Trampove populističke poruke, veliki broj tradicionalnih republikanskih birača video je rizik u izgledima za pobedu na opštim izborima usled njegove specifične retorike. Posledično, drugi deo glasača koji se protive establišmentu okrenuo se doktoru Bendžaminu Karsonu iz Mičigena, poznatom po suprotstavljanju političkoj korektnosti. Birači koji su bili fokusirani na pobedu na opštim izborima protiv Hilari Klinton, a ne samo preliminarnu protiv Trampa i ostalih republikanskih kandidata, videli su šansu u Karsonu, Amerikancu afričkog porekla koji bi mogao da privuče afro-američke glasove i koji pritom ima inspirativnu životnu priču o putu ka uspehu. Na Benovu nesreću, njegov blag temperament i nedostatak harizme izbacio ga je iz takmičenja u kojem mediji favorizuju kontroverze i dinamičnost. Na samom početku, Tramp i Karson su zajedno uzimali oko 50% glasova na anketama, što znači da je preostalih 50% bilo podeljeno duž partijske osnove između različitih kandidata koji su mahom imali zavidne političke karijere. Ti kandidati, konkretno Džeb Buš, Marko Rubio, Kris Kristi, Džon Kejsik, Majk Hakabi i Rend Pol, našli su se u neočekivanoj poziciji u kojoj im njihove karijere guvernera i senatora neće ići u korist u meri u kojoj bi to bilo u nekim prethodnim izborima. Iako je Ted Kruz bio senator iz Teksasa, njegova desničarska kampanja imala je za cilj distanciranje od drugih karijernih političara. To odvajanje je išlo u oba smera – brojni kongresmeni su često izjavljivali kako je Ted Kruz jedan od najomraženijih ljudi u Kongresu i kako se gotovo nikome ne sviđa. Takav prezir iz establišmenta je zapravo doprineo Kruzovom populističkom pristupu budući da su ga birači percipirali kao reformatora partije, neprijatelja i autsajdera trenutnom zatvorenom stranačkom klubu. Možda najveći protivnik establišmenta, a ujedno i najviše zanemareni kandidat, bio je senator Kentakija

Unutrašnje podele

107

Rend Pol. Obrazovan na Univerzitetu Djuk, oftalmolog koji je ušao u politiku dolazi iz američke libertarijanske porodice (njegov otac, Ron Pol, učestvovao je u predsedničkoj trci 2008. i 2012. godine), ali je zaključio da će, iako je Libertarijanac, imati veće šanse ukoliko učestvuje u izborima za republikansku nominaciju. Budući da republikansko biračko telo sve više podržava društvena pitanja poput legalizacije marihuane, abortusa i prava homoseksualaca, Rend Pol bio je rani favorit mladih glasača koji su tražili alternativu Hilari Klinton i samoproklamovanom socijalisti Berniju Sandersu. Međutim, usled sukoba sa Trampom u prvim debatama i niskoj medijskoj zastupljenosti, Polova kampanja nije uspela da ostvari veliki početni napredak. Ipak, veliki su izgledi da će u budućnosti Rendove libertarijanske politike i strogo pridržavanje Ustava privlačiti širu bazu sastavljenu od studenata i dugogodišnjih libertarijanaca, imajući u vidu da veliki broj Republikanaca postaje socijalno liberalniji uz održavanje fiskalnog konzervativizma. Ukoliko se rascepi u državi prodube i Demokrate počnu da usvajaju popularne socijalističke pozicije, jedina šansa Republikanske partije biće napuštanje krajnje desnih stavova koje trenutno zastupa i okretanje ideologiji bliskoj Rendu Polu. Da li će „Velika stara partija“ ubuduće okupljati ljude slične ovom kandidatu u promenljivoj političkoj klimi SAD-a? Za to svakako postoje izgledi, ali se neće ostvariti ove godine. Socijalni konzervativci, uključujući osnovni ogranak evanđelista, vuku socijalne politike Republikanske partije u desno i time proširuju razdor između progresivnih Demokrata i konzervativnih Republikanaca. Zastupajući stavove poput čvrstog protivljenja abortusu, snažnih politika koje zabranjuju istopolne brakove i oklevanja u pogledu legalizacije marihuane, socijalni konzervativci oblikuju opredeljenje Republikanske partije u ovim oblastima. Na njihovu nesreću, velika većina američke gene-

108

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

racije milenijalaca se, nezavisno od članstva i simpatizerstva prema strankama, ne slaže sa ovakvim stavovima. Otuđivanje toliko velikog dela biračkog tela ne samo da je katastrofalno loša procena u smislu gubljenja glasova, već daje povod i Demokratama da ih nazivaju „diskriminatornim, staromodnim, zastarelim, netoleratnim bigotima.“ Napuštajući navedene stavove, Republikanci bi mogli da stave naglasak na svoj liberalni ekonomski program i da ga suprotstave rastućim intervencionističkim i socijalističkim ekonomskim elementima Demokratske partije. Međutim, socijalni konzervativci odlažu ekonomske rasprave, a umesto toga ističu svoje tradicionalne religijske vrednosti i podržavaju kandidate koji iste zastupaju. Ove godine, Kejsik i Rend Pol nisu privukli opisani segment biračkog tela. Većina socijalnih konzervativaca našla je svog kandidata u senatoru iz Teksasa Tedu Kruzu, bivšem guverneru Arkanzasa Majku Hakabiju ili dr Benu Karsonu. Na opšte iznenađenje, Donald Tramp koji nema ugled preterano religioznog čoveka uspeo je da ostvari podršku velikog dela ove demografske grupe, naročito pošto što je istakao značaj svoje hrišćanske vere. Ukoliko ostavimo pitanja nacionalne politike po strani, partijske frakcije se i dalje sukobljavaju u pogledu spoljne politike. Doba neokonzervativne dominacije je završeno. Retorika se okrenula od pretežno intervencionističke ka velikom broju nekonzistentnih i raznolikih stavova. Dok „ratni jastrebovi“3 imaju svoje predstavnike u uticajnim članovima poput senatora Teda Kruza, Marka Rubija i Lindzija Grejema, većina kandidata zastupa lepezu različitih stavova. Rend Pol, najveći pobornik izolacionističke politike, zagovara potpuno povlačenje, uz izuzetak dijaloga i pomoći u Siriji. Drugi, poput Marka Rubija i Džeba Buša, zalažu se za pomoć pobunjenicima i 3

eng. War Hawks – izraz koji označava pobornike snažne vojne sile i intervencionističke spoljne politike, prim.prev.

Unutrašnje podele

109

Asadu uz istovremene napade na Islamsku državu u Iraku i Siriji (ISIS). Ted Kruz, međutim, smatra da je neophodno potpuno uništiti ISIS svim mogućim sredstvima. „Tramplikanci“4, čiju spoljnu politiku možemo definisati kao zavisnu od pojedinačnog slučaja, zastupaju uništavanje ISIS-a upotrebom potpune sile ukoliko je to potrebno, nadziranje i posmatranje džamija, uvođenje ograničenja građanima muslimanskih zemalja koji dolaze u SAD , kao i rešavanje sukoba u Istočnoj Evropi putem kompromisa i dijaloga sa Vladimirom Putinom. Istovremeno, „Tramplikanci“ su NATO-skeptici i dovode u pitanje ulogu Sjedinjenih Američkih Država u zaštiti velikog broja zemalja širom sveta u zamenu za malu ekonomsku pomoć. S druge strane, Ted Kruz insistira na uništenju ISIS-a, pojačanju bezbednosti na svim frontovima, ali i suprotstavljanju Vladimiru Putinu.

4

eng. Trumplicans – ukazuje na deo biračkog tela koji predstavlja širi društveni pokret sa ciljem da „povrati staru slavu Americi“ – peronalizovan u liku Donalda Trampa (prim.prev)

110

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Unutrašnje podele

111

VII KAKO ĆE ISHOD IZBORA UTICATI NA ZAPADNI BALKAN I SRBIJU?

112

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

Kako će ishod izbora uticati na Zapadni Balkan i Srbiju?

113

Nevena Mančić*, Jelena Đukić** i Pavle Jakšić***

Kako će ishod američkih predsedničkih izbora uticati na Zapadni Balkan i Srbiju? Berni Sanders U pogledu američke spoljne politike i ishoda izbora, obe glavne partije moraju da imaju u vidu da su globalni integritet i bezbednost bitniji od osvajanja političkih bodova. Kada je reč o doktrini i spoljnopolitičkim stavovima Bernija Sandersa, jedno je sigurno: on vodi računa o granici i prelazu između domaćeg i međunarodnog i između politike i ekonomije.1 Imajući u vidu američku spoljnopolitičku istoriju, on zaključuje da Sjedinjene Američke Države ne mogu sebi da priušte još jednog lidera čije bi odluke u međunarodnoj areni imale loše dugoročne posledice po samu državu. Dodatne nestabilnosti i neprijateljstva prema SAD-u bi otežale ostvarivanje njihovih ciljeva.2 Bernijev stav o Islamskoj državi jeste da se trenutna američka politika savršeno uklapa u ovaj šablon – skupa je, kontraproduktivna i stvara nove neprijatelje uz velike troškove na domaćem planu.3 Ove tvrdnje poka

*

E-mail: [email protected]

** E-mail: [email protected] *** E-mail: [email protected] 1

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/articles/201602-29/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-doctrine-actually-makes-a-lotof-sense, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.) 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

114

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

zuju da Sanders ima prilično realistične poglede na američku bezbednost i spoljnu politiku. Povezujući lokalno i globalno, kao i političko i ekonomsko, deluje da ovaj kandidat ide u korak sa globalizovanim svetom 21. veka.4 Trenutne prognoze rezultata predsedničkih izbora mu ne idu u korist, ali je ostalo još vremena do kraja trke. Još jedna bitna stvar o njegovim spoljnopolitičkim stavovima jeste perspektiva „skeptičnog uzdržavanja“.5 Veoma je obziran u pogledu troškova upotrebe vojne sile, kao i politike promene režima, što znači da se u nekoj meri slaže sa Barakom Obamom. Ne misli da Sjedinjenje Američke Države mogu, niti treba, da budu svetska policija, i razume da, bez uzdržavanja u inostranstvu, ne bi mogle da se fokusiraju na obnovu države na domaćem terenu.6 Poštujući njegove realističke poglede, može se zaključiti da nema velike izgleda za pobedu u predsedničkoj trci. Međutim, jedno je sigurno: Berni Sanders je drastično izmenio stavove i delovanje na spoljnopolitičkom planu ističući da ovogodišnji izbori neće uticati samo na Ameriku, već i na čitav svet. Pokazao je da osnovni ekonomski principi američkog društva nisu neprikosnoveni i nedodirljivi i da Amerika mora da ima razumevanja za različite modele socioekonomskog razvoja u drugim zemljama. Kada je reč o Balkanu, konkretno o Srbiji, Bernijevi stavovi ulivaju nadu u mogućnost promene pristupa. Ipak, Sanders je daleko od mirotvorca. Podržao je upotrebu vojne sile na Balkanu za vreme Klintonove administracije, kao i intervenciju u Avganistanu posle terorističkih napada od 11. septembra 2001. godine.7 Iako su izgledi da Sanders osvoji nominaciju Demokratske stranke prilično 4

Ibid. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-realist/2016/03/08/c7f3422e-e48a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.) 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 5

Kako će ishod izbora uticati na Zapadni Balkan i Srbiju?

115

mali, on je uložio značajan napor da izmeni američku spoljnopolitičku perspektivu, tako da ostaje nada da će neki od njegovih zaključaka dospeti do platforme budućeg predsednika SAD-a. Hilari Klinton kao predsednik Kada je reč o spoljnoj politici i razlikama između dve glavne partije, Demokrate su tradicionalno posvećenije pitanjima ljudskih prava, unapređivanju univerzalnih vrednosti širom sveta, a skeptični u pogledu upotrebe vojne sile, te samim tim sklonije diplomatskim merama. Međutim, to ne mora nužno da bude tačno. Onog momenta kada novi predsednik uđe u Belu kuću, upada u zavrzlamu brojnih politika i lobiranja koje njemu ili njoj vrlo lako mogu promeniti mišljenje. Intervencije u Iraku, Libiji i Siriji su primeri toga, a Hilari je snažno podržala sve tri intervencije. U ovom kontekstu je bitno naglasiti da je ona jedini ozbiljan kandidat koji ima iskustva u sprovođenju spoljne politike. Moglo bi se pretpostaviti da će tu činjenicu iskoristiti kao prednost, međutim, u toku ovogodišnje predsedničke trke gotovo da nije ni pominjala svoje iskustvo državnog sekretara. Štaviše, u intervjuu koji je dala pre nekoliko godina nije mogla da navede svoj najveći uspeh na ovoj poziciji.8 U svakom slučaju, stavke koje Klintonova ističe u jeku predsedničke kampanje, a u pogledu spoljnopolitičkog iskustva, jesu podrška akciji protiv Bin Ladena, primirje tj. prekid vatre u Gazi i nametanje sankcija Iranu.9 U kontekstu opštih spoljnopolitičkih stavova, „Odbrana Amerike i naših temeljnih vrednosti je jedan od stu8



http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/10/hillary-cantname-top-accomplishment-as-secretary-of-state/#594d9eb646a4, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.) 9 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/20/ secstate-record/, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.)

116

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

bova kampanje Hilari Klinton. Kada Amerika vodi principima i svrhom, ostali narodi i vlade se rado pridružuju.“10 Hilari, dakle, i dalje vidi Sjedinjene Američe Države kao svemoćnog globalnog lidera 21. veka koji ima snagu da oblikuje budućnost sveta i svetskih procesa. Posledično, verovatno neće oklevati u upotrebi vojne sile nasuprot diplomatskim merama u svom novom ratu protiv terorizma, istovremeno težeći da zaštiti ljudska prava i demokratiju širom Zemljine kugle.11 I pored toga, Amerika je u njenim očima još uvek nezamenljiva nacija, ili kako je sama izjavila: „(...) ukoliko SAD nisu vođa, drugog vođe neće biti. Postojaće samo vakuum. A ako želimo da budemo uspešni, moramo da vodimo.“12 Imajući u vidu opštu svetsku preokupiranost izbegličkom krizom, krizom u Ukrajini, iranskim nuklearnim sporazumom i Islamskom državom u Iraku i Siriji, Balkan ni posredno nije bio u centru pažnje Hilari Klinton. Ovo zvuči iznenađujuće u svetlu njene istorije u ovom regionu. Kao prva dama SAD, Hilari je snažno podržavala NATO bombardovanje Jugoslavije 1999. godine. Danas izgleda da je balkanski region više ne interesuje u tolikoj meri. Međutim, dok je bila na poziciji državnog sekretara, Hilari je često govorila o „nezavršenim poslovima na Balkanu“, konkretnije o situaciji u Bosni i Hercegovini nakon Dejtonskog sporazuma. To ukazuje na činjenicu da se položaj Republike Srpske u BiH i dalje smatra pitanjem koje je nophodno rešiti. Za vreme posete Balkanu 2010. godine dok je još uvek bila državni sekretar, prvi grad koji je posetila bilo je Sarajevo. Klintonova je ponovo došla u posetu 2012. godine, ovoga puta zajedno sa Visokom 10

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.) 11 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.) 12 http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.)

Kako će ishod izbora uticati na Zapadni Balkan i Srbiju?

117

predstavnicom EU za spoljnu politiku i bezbednost Ketrin Ešton. Ovom prilikom je ponovo pomenula nedovršene poslove i istakla da to pitanje vidi kao „porodičnu stvar“.13 Pored Bosne i Hercegovine, još jedno otvoreno pitanje za Hilari tiče se Kosova i njegove samoproglašene nezavisnosti, tačnije nepriznavanja iste od strane Beograda. Ovo je, između ostalog, bila jedna od najistaknutijih tema tokom njene posete 2012. godine, neposredno pre napuštanja mesta državnog sekretara. Albanija i Priština su trenutno najveće pristalice porodice Klinton na čitavom Balkanu. Njihova podrška kreće se od davanja imena ulicama, preko dizanja statua Bilu Klintonu na trgovima, do otvorenog podržavanja i skupljanja sredstava za predsedničku kampanju Hilari Klinton.14 Ono što je sigurno u vezi sa njenim spoljnopolitičkim stavovima jeste da Hilari istinski veruje da SAD treba da potvrde svoju vodeću ulogu u svetu, kao i da i dalje imaju određen ulog na Balkanu. Pored nezavršenih poslova koje često pominje, vrlo je moguće da će aktuelna izbeglička kriza, kao i teroristički napadi u Evropi, ponovo usmeriti njenu pažnju na Balkan. Poznato je da je Balkan preplavljen talasom migranata koji mahom dolaze iz ratnih zona zemalja Bliskog istoka. Takođe, nije tajna ni koliko je kontroverzna činjenica da je određen broj ljudi iz Bosne i Hercegovine i sa Kosova i Metohije otišao na Srednji istok da se bori na strani Islamske države. Trenutni nemiri i politička nestabilnost u Makedoniji mogu biti dodati na gomilu nedovršenih poslova. Evropa nije pokazala dovoljno spretnosti u suočavanju sa aktuelnim problemima. Ukoliko Hilari postane novi 13

http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2012_11_01/EU-US-officials-attend-to-unfinished-business-in-the-Balkans/, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.) 14 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/albanians-loyal-to-hillary-clinton-presidential-race-04-18-2016, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.)

118

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

predsednik, prilično je izvesno da ćemo biti svedoci velikog američkog povratka na Balkan. Pre svega, želeće da završi ono što očigledno smatra svojim i nasleđem svoga muža – konkretno, situaciju u Bosni i Hercegovini i na Kosovu*. Zatim, budući da se Evropska unija suočava sa problemima u sopstvenom razvoju poput Bregzita, integracije migranata, ekonomije i procesa proširivanja, a Rusija ponovo „pokazuje zube“, teško da bi Hilari dozvolila nastanak vakuuma na Balkanu.

Kako će ishod izbora uticati na Zapadni Balkan i Srbiju?

119

Marko Despotović*

Kako će dolazak novog predsednika uticati na američku spoljnu politiku prema Zapadnom Balkanu? Politički sistem Sjedinjenih Američkih Država karakterističan je po tome što ima monocefalnu izvršnu vlast. Ona je oličena u šefu države i takav politički sistem naziva se predsednički. Predsednik SAD prema Ustavu ima vrlo široka ovlašćenja. „On je istovremeno šef države, nosilac izvršne vlasti i vrhovni komandant oružanih snaga. Osim toga, on ima pravo zakonodavne inicijative, kao i stavljanja veta na zakone ili druge akte koje donese Kongres (što, istina, Kongres može dvotrećinskom većinom preglasati)“.1 Kada je reč o subjektima koji kreiraju spoljnu politiku SAD, glavnu ulogu imaju predsednik i Kongres. Ipak, nakon Drugog svetskog rata, predsednik je taj koji dominira u spoljnopolitičkom odlučivanju. Savet za nacionalnu bezbednost predstavlja instituciju koja ima značajnu ulogu u samom procesu kreiranja spoljne politike SAD. Pored predsednika, u okviru Saveta nalaze se i potpredsednik, državni sekretar, sekretar finansija, sekretar odbrane i savetnik za nacionalnu bezbednost. Takođe, tu je i načelnik Združenog generalštaba vojske SAD, koji je * [email protected] 1

Ivo Visković, Između zavere i birokratskog haosa – kako se stvara spoljna politika SAD, Anagraf, Beograd, 2007, str. 75.

120

Pojmovnik američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016

glavni vojni savetnik u Savetu za nacionalnu bezbednost. Pored njega, tu je i direktor obaveštajnih službi.2 Ukratko, ove osobe predstavljaju „glavni mozak“ koji kreira spoljnu politiku SAD i oni imaju značajan uticaj na donošenje odluka predsednika SAD. Iako su u tekstu već pomenuti državni sekretar i sekretar odbrane, valja istaći i institucije koje oni predstavljaju, a to su Stejt department i Pentagon. Kao što se može videti, veliki broj aktera u već jednom ustaljenom sistemu učestvuje u procesu kreiranja spoljne politike SAD. Predsednik predstavlja jedan deo (doduše najvažniji) tog sistema, ali kada je reč o svetskoj supersili kao što su Sjedinjene Države, njena spoljna politika već ima određen pravac delovanja. Iz tog razloga, dolazak novog predsednika može sa sobom doneti promene, što se kroz istoriju i dešavalo, ali te promene ne mogu biti takve da značajno utiču na osnovne temelje i već zacrtan kurs koji američka spoljna politika ima. Što se tiče Zapadnog Balkana, ovaj region je bio u fokusu američke spoljne politike tokom devedesetih, u periodu građanskog rata i raspada SFRJ. Može se izvući jedno određeno pravilo u vezi sa tim, a to je: što je Zapadni Balkan politički stabilniji, to je interesovanje SAD-a manje. Važno je istaći da Sjedinjene Američke Države u regionu Zapadnog Balkana deluju zajedno sa Evropskom unijom i u skladu sa tim dele ulogu posrednika u procesu regionalnog pomirenja. Ipak, ono što Sjedinjene Američke Države trenutno najviše zanima pored regionalne stabilnosti, jeste potvrda nezavisnosti takozvane države Kosovo, proces evropskih integracija Srbije, Crne Gore, Makedonije, Albanije i Bosne i Hercegovine, a sve više i uticaj Ruske Federacije na ovaj deo Evrope.

2

Videti detaljnije: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/ eop/nsc (pristupljeno 23.04.2016)

Kako će ishod izbora uticati na Zapadni Balkan i Srbiju?

121

Donald Tramp Donald Tramp važi za kandidata koji bi uneo određene promene u spoljnu politiku Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Iz njegovih izjava se to može lako zaključiti, ali mu veliki deo javnosti često zamera na slabom znanju kada je reč o međunarodnim odnosima. Po određenim mišljenjima predstavlja čak i izolacionistu, mada je ta tvrdnja izuzetno sporna. Fokus njegove spoljne politike bio bi na bilateralnom odnosu sa Kinom, posebno kada je reč o trgovini. Zalaže se za jačanje američke vojske, ali i pažljiviji i proračunatiji pristup kada je upotreba vojne sile u pitanju. To pre svega znači da bi SAD u budućnosti mogle da prebacuju veću odgovornost na saveznike u vojnim intervencijama. Tramp je na određen način kritikovao NATO, a smatra i da SAD izdvajaju previše novca za zaštitu saveznika kao što su Japan i Južna Koreja. Odnosi SAD i Ruske Federacije imaju najveće posledice po Evropsku uniju, a samim tim i na region Zapadnog Balkana. Za razliku od oštre retorike Hilari Klinton kada je reč o Rusiji i njenom predsedniku Putinu, Donald Tramp važi za kandidata koji sigurno ne bi unosio dodatnu agresivnost u spoljnoj politici prema Ruskoj Federaciji. Već je izjavio da nema ništa protiv ruske vazdušne intervencije u Siriji i bombardovanja Islamske države. Činjenica je da trenutno zategnuti odnosi na relaciji SAD – Rusija utiču na pojedine države Zapadnog Balkana, a to posebno važi za Srbiju. Takođe, kriza u Ukrajini značajno je uticala na celu Evropu, a Srbija je bila izložena određenim pritiscima da uskladi svoju spoljnu politiku sa EU i uvede sankcije Rusiji. Dolazak Donalda Trampa na mesto predsednika SAD bi doneo mogućnost određene promene spoljne politike SAD prema Rusiji, a samim tim i prema Evropi i Zapadnom Balkanu. Ipak, određeni ciljevi koje su SAD postavile u ovom delu Evrope, kao što su regionalna stabilnost i promocija nezavisnosti Kosova, najverovatnije bi ostali nepromenjeni i u narednom periodu.

THE HANDBOOK OF THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2016

Foreword

125

FOREWORD Dear Readers, In the year of the 58th presidential elections, the year that will see the 45th president of the most powerful country in the world will be elected, the Center for the Studies of the United States of America at the Faculty of Political Sciences University of Belgrade and the Center for Social Dialogue and Regional Initiative, with the support of the US Embassy in Belgrade and the Balkan Trust for Democracy, has engaged in publishing a Handbook of American Presidential Elections, along with various activities related to the topic. Preparations for the Handbook began in February 2016 and are a result of cooperation between students from Clemson University in South Carolina (United States of America) and from the Faculty of Political Sciences University of Belgrade (Serbia). Namely, a group of seven Clemson students stayed in Belgrade between January 22nd and May 2nd 2016, as part of the Clemson University Department of Political Science and the Center for the Studies of the United States of America at the Faculty of Political Sciences University of Belgrade Cooperation Program. Being the first generation of the Clemson University Study Abroad Program – Spring Semester in Belgrade, they had a chance to take five classes in Belgrade which are officially acknowledged by their University back in South Carolina. Apart from the classes that are in their official curriculum at Clemson (US Foreign Policy, International Relations Theories, European Integration and International Economy) that

126

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

were taught by professors Dragan R Simic, Tanja Miscevic, Maja Kovacevic and Ivan Vujacic, Clemson students also had a class “Serbian Culture and History” that consisted of lectures as well as socializing and working with students from our Faculty. Therefore, from February to May, a group of about 15 Serbian students was meeting with 7 Clemson students on a weekly basis to debate and discuss American presidential elections, as well as the Serbian parliamentary elections that took place on April 24th. The Handbook before you is a result of this cooperation, and of the need to bring American presidential elections closer to the interested public – primarily students. The pattern that was used in this project partially followed the structure given in the U. S. Congressional Research Service publications regarding the presidential elections.3 The Handbook consists of seven sections: 1) Background and Context of the Elections; 2) Primary Season; 3) National Party Conventions; 4) Campaigns; 5) Candidates; 6) Party Divisions; 7) Ways the Elections Outcome will Affect Western Balkans and Serbia. Even though the writing was finished in mid-May while the primaries were still going on, we have decided not to change any of the texts and publish them as they were originally written. In order to introduce the texts to readers in the United States, and because Clemson students wrote their sections in English, we have decided to publish the Handbook bilingually – in Serbian and in English. We are grateful to Lana Avakumovic, a senior in undergraduate studies of international politics at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade, for translating the Handbook. None of this could have happened without the 3

See: Kevin J. Coleman, The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Conventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service, Washington D. C., December 30 2015, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42533.pdf, (Accessed on: January 20th 2016)

Foreword

127

mentioned cooperation with Clemson University, and we have Professors Vladimir Matic and Jeff Peake, the Chair of the Political Science Department at Clemson University, to thank for that. An integral part of this book is also a Glossary of U. S. Election Terms which we translated from English in to Serbian with a group of students who were in the U. S. Master Studies program at the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Political Sciences in 2012. Although four years have passed since, the Glossary is as relevant as it was back then, and we have decided to publish it in its original form. We are grateful to the mentioned group of students for participating in such a venture. Finally, we owe the biggest gratitude to the students who took part in this project and without whom this Handbook would not have seen the light of day. Those students are: Katherine Gash, Kelsea Schulenberg, Kelly Melton, Alexa Hall, Ryan Bartley, Caleb Knight, Wyatt Amaral (United States of America), Teodora Markovic, Nevena Mancic, Jelena Djukic, Nina Capric, Milica Dragisic, Lana Avakumovic, Marko Despotovic, Milan Rankovic, Slobodan Brkic, Uros Kusturic, Konstantin Lijakovic, Konstantin Magdic, Stefan Tasic, Stefan Simic, Andrej Sevo, Pavle Jaksic, Edin Sinanovic and Mijat Kostic (Republic of Serbia). The United States Embassy in Serbia and the Balkan Trust for Democracy recognized the importance of such a project, and we are grateful for their support in its realization. We hope students, and those interested in American politics and presidential elections, will find this Handbook useful, not only during the 2016 elections, but for the American presidential elections in years to come. In Belgrade on October 12th 2016

Prof. dr Dragan R. Simić, mr Dragan Živojinović, MA Stevan Nedeljković

I BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Background and Context

131

Jelena Djukic* and Nevena Mancic**

Winning the Nomination Potential runners in presidential elections have to pass a long way before being nominated by their parties as official candidates. This is one of the main reasons the presidential campaign starts so early. Before a candidate even announces that he/she is planning on running in the elections there are some important questions to be considered such as: What does your family think about this? Can you afford it? Can you raise enough money? Will you have enough time to do this? Can you make a difference? Is this your year? If the answers to these questions are positive, the following steps they should think about are choosing reliable members of their team, preparing a detailed campaign plan, raising funds or even attending a Campaign school in order to be organized to the best of their abilities.1 The campaign starts with the candidates’ official announcements of running for office. At this time, speeches, handshaking, baby-kissing and pet caressing start full time. After the introduction, the candidates have their first encounter with their likeminded fellows from the same party who will be their competition for the party nomination. In this process, they strive to gain the support of other delegates from their party who will hopefully back their nomination at the national party conven* [email protected] ** [email protected] 1

http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=104, (accessed on: March 13th, 2016)

132

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

tion. Independent candidates who are not affiliated with any political party can also take a shot at this marathon by collecting a sufficient number of signatures from eligible voters. The two key phases of the nomination process are primaries and caucuses.2 This is the moment where the general public has a chance to take part in the nomination. Primaries are similar to classic elections where participants go to local polling stations and vote for their preferred candidate. Caucuses tend to be more deliberate since they basically consist of local meetings where people discuss and debate the choice of the delegates who will represent the caucuses at the next conventional level. Each state’s party committee determines the rules for their particular election. As a result, there are various combinations for primaries and caucuses. They can be either open or closed, binding or non-binding, as well as winner-takes-all or proportional. Independent candidates do not need to participate in caucuses or primaries since they are not members of any party. If they manage to collect a sufficient number of signatures, their name will simply be on the ballot in the general elections. American political parties hold National Party Conventions in order to formally select their candidates for the general presidential elections. Those conventions are formal gatherings of all party delegates from each state and are organized in the summer before presidential elections. Aside from selecting the nominees, the purpose of the conventions is to also adopt the party platform with all its principles and goals. In modern campaigns, nominating conventions are largely ceremonial.3 The 47th Democratic National Convention will be host2

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/current-events/nomination-process/, (accessed on: March 13th, 2016) 3 Ibid.

Background and Context

133

ed in Philadelphia in July 2016, and the 41st Republican National Convention will be hosted in Cleveland in that same month.4 In order to be nominated on those Conventions, candidates need to get the delegates’ support, so certain days in the primaries, which are graphically presented in the picture bellow, are very important for their potential nomination. Delegates are often party activists, local leaders, or early supporters of given candidates.5 Each party has its own formula for determining the size of their delegation, factoring in criteria such as population, proportion of that state’s Congressional representatives or state government officials who are members of the party, and the state’s voting patterns in previous presidential elections.6 On the last day of the Conventions, nominees for both President and Vice President deliver their acceptance speeches. After the National Party Conventions are over, it is time for the general elections. Presidential candidates participate in debates and general election campaigns throughout the country.7 In this phase, their main goal is to present their ideas to the people and win the support of potential voters. When voting for president, people actually vote for the electors in the Electoral College who then cast their votes according to the will of the people and, in the end, elect the U.S. President and Vice President. 4

https://www.usa.gov/election#item-211665, (accessed on: March 13th, 2016) 5 http://www.cfr.org/elections/us-presidential-nominating-process/p37522, (accessed on: March 13th, 2016) 6 https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/interest-groups-7/party-organization-57/national-convention-329-8402, (accessed on: March 13th, 2016) 7 https://www.usa.gov/election#item-211665, (accessed on: March 13th, 2016)

134

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

There are 538 electors, and a candidate needs 270 votes to win the presidential election. If there is no Electoral College winner, the House of Representatives chooses the President.8 Even though this situation is technically possible, the Electoral College remains a very important factor of the U.S. long-term political stability.

8

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/vote/presidential_elections. shtml, (accessed on: March 13th, 2016)

Background and Context

135

Katherine Gash*

The Contemporary Nominating Process The nomination process of the United States has gone through substantial reforms in recent history. The old nomination process was in effect until 1968 while the contemporary process has ruled since then. The changes to the nomination process were administered by the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, better known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission.1 This commission was created in response to the turbulent 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.2 As the convention was going on there were riots outside on the streets. Many of the protestors were objecting against the Vietnam War as well as civil rights issues within the United States. At the same time the Democratic Party was in disarray inside the convention building.3 The party was divided over policy as well as procedural issues. They also did not have an official stance on the war in Vietnam. Party leaders were seen as abusing their power by nominating one candidate, Hubert Humphrey, who had not participated in a single primary, rather than Eugene McCarthy, who had received support over his campaign. Humphrey had concentrated on gaining delegates from * [email protected] 1

George McGovern and the Primary Process. (2012, October 24). (Retrieved March 01, 2016,) from https://poliscinews.wordpress. com/tag/mcgovern-fraser-commission/ 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

136

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

states who did not have primaries. In these states the party leaders controlled the delegate votes. In 1968 only 14 states held primaries, along with Washington D.C. Delegates from West Virginia and Washington D.C. remained unpledged. Despite the popular vote and the result of the primaries Humphrey ended with the highest delegate count, as he had the support of party.

Background and Context

137

The nomination of Humphrey created dissent within the Democratic Party. 4The result was the McGovernFraser Commission, which was created to improve the conditions of the nomination process.5 Before the McGovern-Fraser Commission the nomination was largely decided by party leaders. There were few primaries and little public participation.6 The low number of primaries meant that candidate’s campaigns started later and did not last very long. There were no federal limits on campaign spending.7 There was also a relatively low amount of media coverage on the campaigns, compared to the enormous amount of coverage that is given to modern campaigns. All this amounted to the fact that before 1968 the nominating process was not closely monitored by the electorate.8 The higher amount of transparency that resulted from the McGovern-Fraser Commission resulted in a higher rate of participation and interest from the public. In this new nominating procedure the candidates dominated the scene while the party leaders lost much of their influence over the decision.9 More primaries arose that allowed for greater participation of the electorate. In these primaries people could come and cast ballots for the candidate of their choice.10 The electoral primaries are held on a staggered schedule that begins in late-January or early-February and continues through mid-June 4

Ibid. Ibid. 6 Center, J. A. (1974). 1972 Democratic Convention Reforms and Party Democracy. Political Science Quarterly, 89(2), 325-350. doi:10.2307/2149263 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Cooper, A. L. (2001). Nominating Presidential Candidates: The Primary Season Compared to Two Alternatives. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 771-793. doi:10.2307/449234 10 Ibid. 5

138

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

of the election year.11 States hold their primaries (or caucuses, which are gatherings of party members in order to select a candidate. These party members are mostly high-level leaders who are chosen in the hope that they will best represent the wants and needs of other party members.12 On varying dates throughout the season with some days having an unusual amount of primaries at once, such as „Super Tuesday“.13 However, sometimes a situation termed “front-loading” can occur. This is when a certain candidate receives a sufficient amount of votes to guarantee their nomination before the primary season ends, effectively stripping the states with late primaries of their influence.14 The growing number of primaries meant that the campaigns became longer. With increasing public participation the media took more of an interest in the nomination process. The candidates use the media to publicize their platform by attending rallies and debates. The aim of the candidates is to receive the majority number of delegates to attain the nomination.15 These delegates are assigned through the votes of the electorate or through super delegation. Assigning delegates based on voting results varies between states. States can have either proportional representation, with the candidates receiving the amount of delegates proportional to the number of votes that they received, or “winner-take-all”, with the candidate who receives the most votes being awarded all of the delegates from that state.16 Super delegates currently only exist within the Democratic Party and are free to support any candidate they wish. 11

13 14 15 16 12

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

Background and Context

139

Source: Pew Research Center

The new rules introduced by the McGovern-Fraser Commission first went into effect for the 1972 election. It transformed the nomination process by shifting the power from party leaders to the voting population. For the most part these reforms have been popular, but they have received some criticisms. The occurrence of frontloading unfairly staggers the influence of states’ primaries and thus the opinion of the voting population in states with later primary elections. However, there is no reason that the nomination process will not be continually improved upon, and even the problem of front-loading may be solved.

140

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Other Works Cited: 1. Our Campaigns – US President – D Primaries Race – Mar 12, 1968. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2. 2016, from http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?Race ID=47021 3. Primaries, caucuses and conventions: Classic races for the presidential nomination. (n.d.). 4. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from https://web.archive.org/web/ 20091027101746/http:// 5. geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/Dem1968.html 6. DeSilver, D. (2016, February 17). Near-record number of primaries this year, but not quite as 7. early. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2016/02/17/nearrecord-number-of-primariesthis-year-but-not-quite-as-early/

Background and Context

141

Slobodan Brkic* and Milan Rankovic**

Selecting the delegates Gopal Ratnam and Jonathan Masters define delegates as „party activists, local political leaders, or early supporters of a given candidate... delegates can also include members of a campaign’s steering committee or longtime active members of their local party organization.“1 Kevin J. Coleman argues that „until recent decades, the national party conventions played the key role in choosing the presidential nominees. In the era of ’party bosses’, state and local party leaders often controlled blocs of delegates or entire state delegations, because delegates were chosen in closed party meetings or conventions. Presidential candidates needed the support of the party leaders and bosses to win the nomination, and deal-making was crucial to the process. “2 According to Coleman, „state parties use two basic methods to select the national convention delegates, the caucus and the primary. “3 L. Sandy Maisel stated that „prior to the 1832 election, parties began to hold conventions, with delegates coming * [email protected] ** [email protected] 1

Gopal Ratnam, Jonathan Masters, The U.S presidential nominating process, CFR backgrounders, Updated: February 9,2016, http:// www.cfr.org/elections/us-presidential-nominating-process/ p37522, (accessed:8.3.2016) 2 Kevin J. Coleman, The presidential nomination process and the national party conventions,2016: Frequently asked questions, Congressional research service, December 30, 2015, p. 1. 3 Ibidem.

142

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

from around the nation to select presidential candidates. “4 As Schumaker and Burdett say „in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a group of ’reformers’ within the democratic party succeeded in almost completely rewriting the basic rules governing delegate selection and convention decision making. They did this in the interest of pursuing greater intraparty democracy and, in many respects, they achieved their goal. After 1972, more people than ever before were involved in the presidential nomination process...“5 On the other hand, Alan Grant has a different view: “The Democratic Party’s emphasis on the representation and the increasing use of primaries for delegate selection in 1972 and 1976 resulted in the exclusion from the convention of many leading party figures in Congress and state politics as well as the charge being made that delegates were out of touch with the views of ordinary Democratic voters.“6 For Polsby, Wildavsky, Schier and Hopkins „the rules of delegate selection and fund-raising require candidates to obtain a broad base of popular support both within the states (for delegates) and across states (for money). “7 For Barbara Norrander, there is „a variety of rules come into play concerning delegates. “ 8 She continues as follows: „First, the two parties have sep4

L Sandy Maisel, American political parties and elections: A very short introduction, Oxford University press, 2007, p. 41. 5 Paul Schumaker, Burdett A. Loomis, Choosing a president: The electoral college and beyond, Chatham House Publishers of Seven Bridges press LLC, 2002, p.109 6 Alan Grant, The American political process, Seventh edition, Routledge, 2004, p. 214. 7 Nelson W. Polsby, Aaron Wildavsky, Steven E. Schier, David A. Hopkins, Presidential elections: Strategies and structures of American politics, Thirteenth edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2012, p. 96. 8 Barbara Norrander, The imperfect primary: Oddities, biases, and strengths of U.S presidential nomination politics, Second edition, Taylor & Francis, 2015, p. 79.

Background and Context

143

arate rules for dividing convention delegate totals across the 50 states (and a few territories). Second, another set of rules determines how convention delegates assigned to each state are allocated to the candidates who competed in the state’s primary or caucus. Finally, a few convention delegates are selected, mostly within the Democratic Party, with no connection to the popular vote in the states. These are party and elected officials who are free to back any candidate they wish. “9 In 2016 elections, in order to win the nomination „a Democratic candidate must secure at least 2,382 out of 4,673 delegates to become the party’s nominee... meanwhile, a Republican candidate must have at least 1,237 out of 2,472 delegates to win the party’s nomination.“10

9

Ibidem. Gopal Ratnam, Jonathan Masters, The U.S presidential nominating process, op.cit.

10

II PRIMARY SEASON

Primary Season

147

Alexa Hall,*1 Andrej Sevo,**, Kelsea Schulenberg,*** Milica Dragisic,**** Nina Capric,***** Stefan Simic******

Primary Season Introduction to Primary Elections The process of choosing political candidates for the office of the Presidency in the United States of America is a very complex one that consists of two types of elections: primary and general. Primary elections are held first, typically about six months before the general elections. Their purpose is to narrow down the candidates to one per party to run against one another in the general elections. This section of the handbook focuses on the various aspects of the primary election process, including institutional organization and effects on the political system. Origins of Primary Elections There are two major causes that have led to the emergence of primary elections: the rejection of the party convention system for nominating candidates and the introduction of “secret ballots” that allowed free voting for party nominees. The first presidential primary elec* [email protected] ** [email protected] *** [email protected] **** [email protected] ***** [email protected] ****** [email protected]

148

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

tion was held in Florida at the turn of the 20th century in 1901. Since then, primaries have grown in importance and have been implemented in most of the states. This has led to greater influence by voters in selecting candidates for the general presidential elections and a decline in power of political parties and their leaders. Primary and Caucus Systems Within the primary system, there are two different types of elections that states can use to establish votes for candidates: primaries and caucuses, although some states combine both methods. Primary is by far a more popular type of process, considering the fact that only fourteen states are currently using the caucus system. A primary system is run by election officials in the state, and the voter goes to his or her regular polling place to cast a ballot. These ballots ensure that decisions by voters can be made privately. Ballots for primaries can also be completed at home through absentee-ballots, incentivizing those who otherwise could not physically travel to a polling station to vote. Primaries additionally utilize two main types of processes: the open primary system and the closed primary system. Procedures are unique and determined by individual states and the main difference is in the treatment of unaffiliated voters and their role in primary elections.2 An open primary system allows voters to choose, regardless of registered party affiliation, which party convention they wish to vote within. For example, a registered Democrat could vote in the Republican primary in an open primary state. A closed primary system is precisely the opposite; only voters registered for that particular party may vote 2

The Economist Data Team. 2016. “America’s primary agenda: 2016 election calendar.” April 6. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/04/primary-season, (accessed on April 13th 2016)

Primary Season

149

in the designated primary. Although a small number of states combine these processes, it is uncommon. The second type of primary election system, caucus, differs greatly from primaries in various ways. Caucuses are best described as local and state meetings, entirely financed and operated by the specific political party where only party-affiliated registered voters participate in discussions and debate about and in support of the party candidates. Each political party conducts caucuses differently, such as the Republican Iowa caucus of 2016 instituting secret ballots, while democrats physically grouped themselves according to supported candidate. From a participant’s point of view, a conventional caucus is different from a primary because it requires a time investment that most voters would rather not make. The rules of participation in a caucus are more complicated than those in a primary, in which a voter simply marks the ballot to record his or her choice.3

Source: The Economist

3

Ibid.

150

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Delegates and Their General Role Although the popular vote is incredibly important during the primaries, a voter’s role is predominantly to direct delegates. Voters in fact cast their primary votes to delegates who then pledge support for a candidate, as opposed to directly electing a candidate. Each state has a set number of delegates, and each political party generally holds a national convention where the delegates collectively decide which candidate will represent their party in the general election. Delegates are supposed to vote for a specific candidate, chosen by the voters, but are technically free to vote however they want. Republican Party vs. Democratic Party Delegates The main difference between the two parties in regards to their election season is how they operate during the primaries and their system of awarding delegates to candidates. The Republican Party allows states to choose whether they award delegates based on a winner-take-all (WTA)/winner-take-most (WTM) method or proportional representation (PR). On the other side, the Democratic Party only uses proportional representation. This system gives a proportional number of delegates to candidates based on the percentage of votes won in that state. The Democratic Party also has “super delegates” – delegates whose votes are independent of the electoral process. These “superdelegates” are Congress members, Governors, past Presidents, and other prominent leaders in the Democratic Party. They are free to cast their vote for whichever candidate in their party they personally support. The use of super delegates is considered a controversial subject among voters because some believe it undermines the democratic process.4 The Republican presidential candi 4

Ibid.

Primary Season

151

Source: Politico Magazine

dates need 1,237 delegates to win the party’s nomination, and Democratic candidates need 2,383 delegates. Superdelegates make up 712 of the Democratic Party’s total delegate count.

Source: Politico Magazine

152

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Advantages of the Primary System The main advantage of primary elections for presidential candidates is the ability to concentrate their campaign efforts in a specific area rather than having to be politically present in all states simultaneously. For ordinary voters, primary systems encourage their engagement and input in the political process. If there were no primary elections, candidates would either be chosen by the political parties without the consent of voters and/ or multiple candidates would be running in the general election from the same party.

Disadvantages of the Primary System There are disadvantages to the primary presidential election system as well. The scheduling of primary elections allows early states to have a great deal of political power and influence over the election regardless of their size or population. Presidential candidates spend a tremendous amount of time campaigning in early primary states. States whose primaries are held late in the primary season typically don’t have as much influence on the outcome of the candidate selection, even if they contain a large population of voters. The primary system typically focuses on individual candidates rather than parties or policies. This lack of party cohesion can lead to the personalization of politics with great emphasis on a candidate’s personal affairs rather than their political ideas.

Primary Season

153

Source: The Pendulum, Elon University’s Student News Organization

Voter Turnout and Public Interest United States primary elections results show that voter turnout is far lower in primaries than in general elections. This is partly due to disinterest and lack of information. Voters who are better informed, dedicated, and strongly committed to parties or candidates are the most likely to vote in primary elections. The lower turnout in the United States primary elections leads to exaggerated influence of small groups of voters who then represent the general population. Party candidates find themselves under pressure to adopt more ideological and extreme positions of primary voters during the primary season. After the primary elections have ended, candidates then embrace more moderate positions to appeal to the general electorate that includes moderates and centrists. This sudden change in ideological stances can

154

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

leave voters feeling mislead by their chosen candidate and cynical about the presidential political process.5 Voter turnout is generally higher in primaries for the majority party because of the higher likelihood of that candidate winning in the general presidential election. Some voters engage in tactical procedures to strengthen their favorite party or candidate, particularly in states with open primaries. As the political system in the United States has become more polarized at the national level, the turnout in primary elections has decreased. This could be a result of moderates who feel there are no viable candidates to represent their interests and choose not to participate in either party’s primary elections.6

Source: The Atlantic

5

Alan I. Abramowitz, 1978.“The Impact of President Debate Voter Rationality.” American Journal of Political Science. 22 (August): 680-690, (accessed on April 13th 2016) 6 Hirano, Shigeo, James M. Snyder Jr., Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere and John Mark Hansen. 2010. “Primary elections and partisan polarization in the U.S. Congress.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 20 (March): 169-191, (accessed on April 13th 2016)

Primary Season

Source: Pew Research Center

155

III NATIONAL PARTY CONVENTIONS

National Party Conventions

159

Konstantin Magdic*

National Party Conventions in 2016 Considering the importance of symbolism, parties put great effort into choosing the right time and place for national conventions. Due to the Olympic Games being held in Rio de Janeiro this year, both parties were forced to move their conventions right before the Olympics in order to get adequate media coverage. Republicans have picked their date first – July 18th through July 21st.1 This year’s Republican convention will be organized earlier than the previous two that were in August 2012 and September 2008.2 In order to have all media eyes on them, the Democrats have decided to have their convention just a week after the Republican one – July 26th through the 28th. Republican have chosen Cleveland, OH, for their convention, seeing as this is one of the most important states in presidential elections.3 Ohio is one of the swing states – neither of the parties has dominant support there. Historically, swing states have had a decisive influence * [email protected] 1

The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Conventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service, 2015, p. 18. 2 Henry J. Gomez, Dates set for Republican National Convention in Cleveland; 4-day event will run July 18-21, available at: http://www. cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/01/dates_set_for_2016_republican.html, (Accessed on April 27th 2016) 3 Ibid.

160

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

on the election results. Ever since Lincoln in 1860, none of the Republican candidates have won the general elections without first having won in the Ohio primaries.4 The last president of the United States that lost in Ohio was John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, in 1960.5 Ohio is, without a doubt, the right choice for the location of the Republican convention. The Democratic Party has chosen to have their convention in Philadelphia, PA, one of the most important cities in U.S. history.6 The First Continental Congress was in Philadelphia, and this is where the two most important documents in American history were signed – the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Additionally, one quarter of U.S. citizens live within a fivehour drive from Philadelphia. The best indicator of this city’s relevance is the fact that the Democrats have organized their national conventions here twice already, while the Republicans have done it six times, including their very first one back in 1856.7 During the DNC in 2008, Barrack Obama gave his famous “A More Perfect Union” speech right here in Philly8 and it influenced his victory quite a bit. Tourist attractions, along with the Democratic convention, are sure to bring in a lot of people as well as large media coverage.

4

Michael Scherer, 5 Reasons to Be Delighted and Worried About a GOP Convention in Cleveland, Available at: http://time.com/2966830/2016republican-convention-cleveland/, Accessed on April 27th 2016 5 Ibid. 6 The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Conventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service, 2015, p. 18. 7 Ibid. 8 Larry Olmsted, Why The Democratic National Convention Is Coming To Philadelphia, Available at> http://www.forbes.com/sites/ larryolmsted/2016/02/25/why-the-democratic-national-committee-is-coming-to-philadelphia/#4f2fd9c16005, (Accessed on April 27th 2016)

National Party Conventions

161

During the first day of the convention, there are hundreds of informal events in the hotels nearby where party members and supporters meet and discuss the future of party politics. This is what makes national conventions so unique. It is only once every four years that this many party members gather in one place. In the convention hall, speeches almost never stop. During the day, less important members address the public, and the evening period, which is broadcasted live on almost every television network, is reserved for renowned and respected party members. The first day ends with a speech delivered by one of the most influential party leaders who usually underlines the party’s successes, while criticizing the opposing party. If there is more than one potential candidate present at the convention, the speaker will remind everyone of the importance of unity and instruct them to resolve any differences in a peaceful manner. On the second day, a majority of the delegates vote on the party platform. A platform is a political plan for the following four years. It contains specific stances on the key points in domestic and foreign policies, as well as the ideas that the party stands for. Usually, all of the crucial questions are resolved within the party before the convention, so the discussions during the convention are purely symbolic. Party platforms are not binding for the candidates, which gives them little importance. Delegates vote for candidate nominations on the third day. State representatives go up on the podium one by one and propose candidates – those that won in their state’s primary elections. Once the nominations are over, representatives stand up again and vote for one or more candidates, assigning the delegates according to the results of the primaries. Ever since 1952, there has been no

162

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

need for a second round of voting in order for a candidate to win the nomination.9 On the fourth and last day of the convention, delegates vote for the vice-presidential candidate, and the procedure remains the same as with the presidential candidate. It is customary for the presidential candidates to announce their own choice for their vice-presidents before the conventions start. Choosing a candidate for vicepresident is not an easy job. Historically, one third, or precisely 14 presidents, were serving as vice-presidents prior to holding office, which is why VP positions are seen as preparations for being president. A vice-presidential candidate is the presidential candidate’s most valuable partner during the campaign, and is supposed to help him/her get elected. This is why vice-presidential candidates are usually people who can somehow compensate any flaws the presidential candidate might have. The reasoning can be geographical – if the president comes from the eastern part of the U.S, the vice-president will generally be from the west. If the party is divided over an ideological issue, the VP will probably have an opposing opinion on the topic to that of the president in order to unite the party for their ticket. One of the key factors that voters have in mind during the campaign is the experience of holding a public office.10 If the presidential candidate lacks experience, he might choose a former member of Congress with an impressive public career for his VP and com9

Nelson W. Polsby,  Aaron Wildavsky, Steven E. Schier, David A. Hopkins, Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland, 2012, p. 144. 10 Josh Clinton, Drew Engelhardt, John Lapinski, What Are Voters Looking for in 2016 Presidential Candidates?, Available at: http:// www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/what-are-voters-looking2016-presidential-candidates-n490706, (Accessed on April 27th 2016)

National Party Conventions

163

pensate for his own inexperience in voters’ eyes. Should the presidential candidate be a man, he might choose a woman to be on his ticket, or even his party rival from the primary season in order to keep the party united. Also, a vice-presidential candidate can be someone popular in one of the swing states which ensure a victory in whichever state they deem crucial for the elections. The last day of the national conventions ends with speeches delivered by the nominated vice-presidential and presidential candidate in an auditorium with tens of thousands of citizens. Traditionally, balloons are released from the ceiling thus marking the end of primary season and the beginning of the final stage of the elections.

164

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Marko Despotovic*

National Conventions and Media National conventions are events where both the Republican and the Democratic Party will nominate their presidential candidates for the upcoming general elections on November 8th 2016. The Republicans are having their convention in the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, OH, starting on July 8th through July 21st, while the Democrats are organizing theirs in the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, PA, July 25th through July 28th. The chosen locations continue the tradition of conventions taking place in either NBA or NHL team arenas. Considering the significance of national conventions, they get plenty media coverage. The first radio transmission of a national convention occurred in 1924, while the first television coverage took place in 1948. Around 15 thousand journalists will be accredited for the Republican national convention in July, making it the second most covered event following the Olympics.1 For security reasons, the U.S. Secret Service will play a major role in accrediting the media.2 Due to the duration of the conventions, only the highlights will be broadcasted live, * [email protected] 1

http://convention.gop/about Hadas Gold, “Secret Service takes on new credentialing role for conventions”, Politico, April 15, 2016; Available on: http://www. politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/04/secret-service-takes-onnew-credentialing-role-for-conventions-222017, (Accessed on April 20th, 2016)

2

National Party Conventions

165

and there will be special TV shows about the candidates and parties during the day. The most important television stations that make those shows and broadcast events live are NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and PBS. Online streaming by media or parties themselves has become very popular lately. National conventions often serve as ceremonies and formalities because the winner, each party’s presidential candidate, is usually selected before the actual events, which is why U.S. citizens are not extremely interested in following the conventions.

166

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

William Knight*3

Brokered National Conventions Could there be a brokered National Convention in 2016? Before seeking to determine whether or not a brokered or multi-ballot convention will take place, the circumstances that require this type of situation must be addressed. A brokered National Convention is necessary when there is no clear frontrunner in one or both of the political parties. The number of delegates they accumulate in the primary election determines what puts a candidate in a front-runner position. The process is usually a series of re-votes in which all voters who pledged to a specific candidate are free to decide on another candidate if they wish to do so. Whether or not a brokered ballot will take place has a tendency to be acknowledged after Super Tuesday because of the large number of delegates that determine whether or not there will be a frontrunner. In the year 2016, it is hard to conclude whether or not there will be a need for a brokered convention, because this year is an enigma compared to most primary elections in the past. The reason is that the candidates are so wide spread in their political positions, especially between parties. The obvious front-runner in the Repu* [email protected]

National Party Conventions

167

blican Party is Donald J. Trump, whose extremely successful campaign has shocked the nation as well as a multitude of political figures within the Republican Party. The Democratic Party, however, is much more split and seems to show that Super Tuesday is a good factor to consider when looking at the progression of the elections. In order to determine if the Democratic candidate will be Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, situations from the past should be considered. Before the era of primary elections, a great deal of presidential elections were brokered. The last time an actual brokered national convention took place in order to produce a president was in 1932, with Franklin D. Roosevelt as the winner. In the modern era, with parties in a substantial level of gridlock, brokered elections are handled in a preventative manner. In the 2008 election a very similar situation happened to the Democratic Party when compared to the primary election today, and even involved one of the same candidates. After Super Tuesday, Barack Obama held a miniscule lead over his contester, Hillary R. Clinton, bringing the potential for a brokered National Convention to take place. When this was brought to Howard Dean’s attention, who was the chair of the DNC at the time, he urged undecided super delegates to commit to either candidate in order to prevent a brokered convention from happening. That being said, this election is quite different from others, especially when looking at the candidates. The Super Tuesday results of the 2016 primary election began to push the candidates further apart. The expected winner of the Republican Party, Donald J. Trump gained a lead of almost 100 delegates over Ted Cruz yet still does not have enough to claim the nomination. Although the results may appear as something that could easily be determined, the 2016 elections are far from conventional. Bernie Sanders, a self-declared socia-

168

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

list, and Donald Trump, a businessman whose statements are far from politically correct, are considered very popular among voters. Trump is the leading candidate for the Republican Party and could very well win the nomination. Although Hillary Clinton may seem unbeatable to Bernie Sanders, the primary elections are far from over. In the past there have been more left leaning states such as California and New York whose participation has always been significantly lower in the primary election, but the 2016 election year is everything but ordinary. Liberals in these states have the potential to see their interests imposed by Republican front-runner Donald Trump and vote for a lower polling candidate. On the Democratic side, there is potential for voters to perceive Hillary Clinton as too moderate and vote for Sanders instead. Overall, it would be hard to tell if there will be a brokered National Convention because of all the different factors that should be considered. The last time a brokered convention took place was in 1952, and this event should be considered when trying to determine whether the same will happen in the year 2016. Although Donald Trump has been claiming a substantial amount of delegates in almost every primary, he does not have enough to claim the nomination quite yet. The other candidates, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, mathematically cannot capture enough delegates to win the nomination, and yet remain in the race. This has a serious effect on the front-runner Donald Trump, because it has the potential to take votes away from him. If the pattern continues, and Trump never captures the needed number of 1,237 delegates, then it will have to go to a brokered convention. This means that, come July, delegates could select another nominee to replace Trump. In 1952, candidates needed 1,230 delegates to capture the nomination. In this brokered convention there were three rounds, and the magic number of votes needed

National Party Conventions

169

was 615.5. After the first round, not much had changed, but the third ballot decided on the winner. The reason was that after the second ballot, everyone broke for dinner. During this break, Truman and other members from the party spoke with those who were running and asked that the party unify rather than split itself further. This led to several delegates withdrawing from the race and essentially giving the nomination to Stevenson. That being said, if there is a contested convention, it is hard to see the Republican Party cooperating in this manner in the year 2016 (Time, 2016). Works Cited 1. Kamarck, Elaine. “What Is a Brokered Convention, and Are We Going to Have One in 2016?” The Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution, 12 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. 2. Prokop, Andrew. “The GOP’s Nuclear Option: How Trump Could Be Denied the Nomination Even with a Majority.” Vox. Vox, 24 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. 3. Rothman, Lily, and Heather Jones. “Confused about How Trump Could Be Denied the Republican Nomination? Let 1952 Be Your Guide.” Time. Time, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

IV CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns

173

Wyatt Amaral*4

Primary Campaigns Campaigns are vital to any Primary. The most powerful person in the United States is the President, and the first major stepping stone to becoming President of the United States is winning the nomination. Campaigns derive their importance from their ability to make or break candidate’s attempts. Campaigns are strategically planned to capitalize on strengths and minimize weaknesses. Due to their importance, campaigns are of the utmost importance to candidates and even the most minor details are meticulously planned. There are several different important components of a Presidential Campaign. Each different facet seeks to maximize a candidate’s visibility and support. In most cases of primary season, any publicity is good publicity. Presidential primary campaigns are very important, and we will discuss several different aspects of primary campaigns. Primary campaigns seek to maximize exposure and differentiate candidates from one another. To understand primary campaigns, it is important to understand how the modern campaign with several different outlets from social media to television has evolved. The structure of these campaigns is also important, as there are really 50 different campaigns going on in each state under the umbrella of a national campaign. Lastly, all of this campaigning must come from somewhere, and cam-

* [email protected]; [email protected]

174

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

paign financing is vital to maximizing a campaign while continuing success. In a Presidential Primary, candidates tend to blend together. Coming from the same party means potential nominees often share views, and to differentiate from other candidates minor differences are inflated. In the general election, different ideology allows for clear-cut differences in policy. Primaries do not offer the same obvious, substantive differences forcing minor differences to be displayed more prominently. According to Samuel Popkin, candidates try to pro­­mote themselves and portray their opponents negatively throughout the course of an election (Popkin, 2012). Candidates seek to establish their personal character while creating distance from their opponents. Undermining the opponent’s character, credibility, and the foundation of their vision are all objectives of a candidate in their primary campaign. By creating differences, more attention can be drawn to the candidates themselves. Distinguishing is very important for this reason, and primary candidates have to find a way to separate themselves and secure a voting block within the party. One of the most important components of a campaign is financing. When the money runs out, candidates cannot complete any of their objectives. Everything costs money in a campaign, from minor details such as pins to major, luxurious travel expenses to campaign all over the country (Adams & Settle, 1978). Therefore, campaigns have to fundraise constantly to ensure they can continue to maximize their exposure to voters. For a long time, public financing was common for presidential candidates, but after the landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, campaign financing greatly changed (Fuller, 2014).

Campaigns

175

The Citizens United Supreme Court Case greatly changed campaign financing because it protected donations made by corporations and unions under the First Amendment. Due to this decision, effectively there is no limit to the amount of money a Political Action Committee can raise for candidates. These Political Action Committees, often called Super PACs, are a loophole that are technically independent and not associated to candidates, but their funds contribute to individual candidates. In the modern primary, money plays a huge role in buying precious media coverage (The Editorial Board, 2015).

The chart above displays campaign spending for Congressional races in the United States, since long-term data is not available for primaries. Campaign spending growth has continuously increased over time in all national elections, even growing faster than growth in income, healthcare costs, and Gross Domestic Product in the United States (Scherer, Rebala, & Wilson, 2014). The success of campaigns determines who runs the United States. A successful campaign results in an electoral win, and any other result can be called a loss. For this reason, campaigns are of the utmost importance to

176

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

candidates during primary season. Additionally, a strong primary campaign can make a transition into the general election easier as it can give infrastructure and already place key members in important areas. Campaigns are important and have very many different components, and they are crucial in the big picture of determining the winner of each presidential nomination and eventually the general election. Bibliography: 1. Adams, B., & Settle, R. (1978). The Economic Theory of Regulation and Public Financing of Presidential Elections. Journal of Political Economy , 86 (2). 2. Fuller, J. (2014, April 3). From George Washington to Shaun McCutcheon: A brief-ish history of campaign finance reform. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from The Washington Post: https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/03/a-history-of-campaign-finance-reform-from-george-washington-toshaun-mccutcheon/ 3. Popkin, S. (2012). The Candidate: What it Takes to Win – and Hold – the White House. New York: Oxford University Press. 4. Scherer, M., Rebala, P., & Wilson, C. (2014, October 23). The Incredible Rise in Campaign Spending. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from TIME Magazine: http://time.com/3534117/the-incrediblerise-in-campaign-spending/ 5. The Editorial Board. (2015, April 27). How Super PACs Can Run Campaigns. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/opinion/how-super-pacs-can-run-campaigns.html

V CANDIDATES

Candidates

179

Kelly Melton*

Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her second run for presidency in a two-minute video released on April 12, 2015. With arguably the most election experience among the Democratic Party, Clinton started out fast and strong, and continues to do so. Clinton also has experience as a lawyer and politician as she served as a US senator in New York from 2001-09 and was Secretary of State from 2009-13, while also serving as President Bill Clinton’s First Lady from 1993-2001. Her early life as a lawyer began after her graduation from Yale Law School in 1973, where she worked in Massachusetts for the Children’s Defense Fund.1 Following the Watergate scandal, Clinton moved to Arkansas where she taught at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Clinton was also a big advocate for civil rights and women’s rights in her early years, and continues to play a major role in both issues today. Clinton’s main platform of issues in her presidential race include climate change and energy, criminal justice reform, gun violence prevention, immigration reform, national security, and women’s rights and opportunity.2

* [email protected]

Britannica.com (accessed 3 March 2016) Ath the Oficial website Hillaryclinton.com *all of the issues are not presented

1 2

180

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Climate change and energy Clinton’s platform on climate change and energy hopes to achieve a national goal to have 500 million solar panels installed to move America in the direction of the number one superpower of clean energy. Clinton plans to install half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term, in hopes to prevent energy waste in homes, hospitals, and schools, as well as reducing oil consumption by a third with purer fuel. Clinton’s Clean Power Plan will prevent 3,600 premature deaths and 90,000 asthma attacks each year by reducing the amount of pollution. (Hillaryclinton.com) Criminal justice reform With the United States having the highest number of incarcerated peoples in the world, Clinton plans to bring an end to the era of mass incarceration by reforming mandatory minimum sentences and ending private prisons. There is a current problem with former incarcerated individuals finding it difficult to re-enter society after their prison sentence. Clinton’s platform hopes to work with these individuals to better equip them with the skills and knowledge to be reintegrated back into society. Clinton also hopes to strengthen trust between police forces and their communities to diminish violence. Clinton’s platform is also focusing on enforcing punishment on violent crimes, not just simple marijuana possession. Marijuana possession accounts for a large number of drug arrests, and drug arrests account for the majority of arrests over all in the US. This, Clinton hopes, will help end mass incarceration.

Candidates

181

Gun violence prevention With multiple domestic terror attacks involving gun violence in the US over the last decade, gun control has been a hot topic in politics. Instead of labeling it “gun control”, Clinton provides specific points she will hope to achieve on preventing gun violence. Clinton first would focus on strengthening background checks when individuals wish to purchase a gun, while also closing dangerous loopholes in the current system. One loophole is the “Charleston Loophole”, which guarantees an individual the right to purchase a gun if the background check is not completed within three days. It is called the Charleston Loophole because of a young man in Charleston, South Carolina, who acquired a gun in this way, and opened fire in a historic black church, killing nine people. Immigration reform Clinton’s platform begins with keeping families strong and together. She hopes to enact a complex immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship in order to keep families together and enable workers to work freely within their community. Clinton has promised to protect immigrant families if Congress refuses to act, by taking affirmative action and providing a straightforward and accessible system for families of American citizens to become citizens themselves. Clinton also hopes to conduct human and targeted immigration enforcement, as well. She is against family detention at the borders, and believes those who arrive at the border in desperate situations should be given a chance by promoting naturalization and expanding access to affordable health care to all families, including immigrant families.

182

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

National security Clinton proves herself to be a more moderate democrat as she is a war hawk, and she hopes to strengthen America’s national security and military. As an advocate for the Iranian Nuclear Deal, Clinton vows to never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon to ensure the safety of Israel. Clinton also vows to defeat ISIS by building Iraqi military and governing capacity and sending support to Afghanistan’s democracy and security, as well as supporting the stability of Libya and Yemen. Clinton also wishes to hold China accountable for its aggressive actions in the region. She promises to promote rules and institutions in Asia with the help of international friends and allies to encourage China to be responsible for human rights, trade, and climate change. Clinton also hopes to decrease the European dependence on Russian oil while also deterring Russian aggressions in Europe by standing up to Putin and holding him accountable for his actions. (Hillaryclinton.com) Women’s rights and opportunity Clinton is a strong advocate for gender equality, and she wishes to ensure equal pay for women, first and foremost, especially with women of color. Clinton hopes to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act – a bill she introduced to the Senate – to provide women with access to tools to fight discrimination in the workplace. She also advocates for the protection of women’s health and reproductive rights, and stands by Planned Parenthood to provide contraception and legal abortion. In addition, she wishes to protect the Affordable Care Act, which bans insurance companies from discriminating against women. (Hillaryclinton.com)

Candidates

183

Stefan Tasic*, Edin Sinanovic**

Bernie Sanders Biography Bernie Sanders was born on September 8th 1941 in Brooklyn, New York.1 His father comes from a Jewish family that lived in World War Two Poland. Unfortunately, due to the Holocaust, Eli lost several family members and decided to leave Poland in order to survive. Sanders Senior dropped out of high school to provide for his family, but never managed to make a lot of money. His mother, Dorothy, chose to live in her own house, while Bernie and his brother Larry grew up in a three-and-ahalf bedroom apartment their family rented. According to Bernie, the lack of money was the cause of many quarrels in the family, especially between his parents.2 Larry and Bernie Sanders went to high school in New York. Bernie’s success was already visible even back then. Apart from being a good student, he was captain of the school marathon team, he wrote for the school paper and managed to win the state championship in basketball along with his teammates. It was then, during high school, that he had his first taste of politics. He ran for * [email protected] ** [email protected]

Congress, SANDERS, Bernard, (1941 – ), Available at: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s000033 (Accessed: 19.03.2016.) 2 Feelthebern, WHO IS BERNIE SANDERS?, Available from: http:// feelthebern.org/who-is-bernie-sanders/ (Accessed: 19.03.2016.) 1

184

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

president of the student parliament and lost, but he ended up representing his class. After enrolling in college in Brooklyn, his mother passed away at the age of 46, after a second unsuccessful heart surgery. After that, Bernie decided to move to Chicago where he would pursue his college degree.3 While in Chicago, he became a human rights activist, and was known for a protest he organized in 1962 (see picture below). A group of students had a sit-down in front of the office of Dr. George Beadle, the head of the University, demonstrating against racial segregation in university owned dormitories and the treatment of African-American students.4 Finally, after having graduated in 1964, Bernie Sanders moved to Vermont and purchased a piece of land worth $ 2.500. In Vermont, Sanders came by a small, anti-war, progressive Liberty Union party and decided to join. In the beginning of his political career, he ran for Senate twice and once for the Governor of Vermont, but could not get over 6% of the vote. Finally he managed to be elected as Mayor of Burlington in 1981, with a mere 10 point margin. He remained Mayor for three more terms before he decided to run for Congress.5 He entered the House of Representatives as an independent in 19906, criticizing both parties when he thought they were in the wrong. 7 He earned his seat in the Senate as a self-proclaimed 3

Ibidem. Dekol, BERNIE SANDERS LEADS 1962 SIT-IN,Bleak beauty blog, Available at: https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/berniesanders-leads-1963-sit-in/ (Accessed: 19.03.2016.) 5 Ibidem. 6 He was not a mamber of neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party. 7 Biography, Bernie Sanders, Biography, Available at: http://www.biography.com/people/bernie-sanders (Accessed: 20.03.2016.) 4

Candidates

185

democratic socialist in 2006 when he ran against a Republican businessman, Richard Tarrant, even though his campaign funds were significantly smaller.8 Finally, Sanders announced his presidential candidacy in April 2015. He decided to run in the Democratic Party’s primaries, finding it more practical than running as an independent. Additionally, the chance to participate in Democratic debates was more than useful for Sanders in the contest for winning the nomination.9 The Candidate’s Profile In order to adequately present Sanders as a U.S. presidential candidate, we need to reflect on his political experience. Up until today, he has represented the American people for exactly 34 years.10 On a scale of -10 to 10, with -10 being the farthest liberal stance, and +10 most conservative, Sanders ranks as -10 in terms of human rights, -8 for domestic issues, -8 for his economic approach, and -8 in terms of defense and foreign policy. This scale, presented on InsideGov’s website, portrays him as a very liberal politician. In fact, only Jill Stein was ranked as more liberal, but she is out of the presidential race.11 Sanders is different from most candidates in many ways, three of which I would like to focus on. First of all, the general impression is that he has managed to gather the biggest crowds during his campaign speech8

Ibidem Ibidem 10 InsideGov, Bernie Sanders – Background, InsideGov, Available from: http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/35/Bernie-Sanders (Accessed 20.03.2016.) 11 InsideGov, Bernie Sanders – Issues, InsideGovhttp://presidentialcandidates.insidegov.com/l/35/Bernie-Sanders (Accessed: 20.03. 2016.) 9

186

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

es. For example, in Boston he spoke in front of 20.000 people. Second, he built his career outside of both the Democratic and the Republican Party, which in some way makes him an independent candidate, even though he chose to run in the Democratic primaries. 12 Finally, his platform stands out from all the other candidates’. He talks about the necessity of reforming Wall Street, legalizing marijuana, free education and free healthcare for all the citizens of the United States of America.13 His main campaign slogan is “A Future to Believe In”.14 His rival in the Democratic primaries is Hillary Clinton, often referred to as more of a “presidential material”. A 74-year-old Coming from the second smallest state and presenting himself as a democratic socialist may not be, according to some, the best option for the Democratic presidential candidate. Also, Sanders is a white man aspiring to represent a very diverse Democratic Party, after a long history of being an independent politician un-affiliated to the Democrats. However, one look at the national polls reveals that Sanders would beat every Republican Candidate with a wider margin than Hillary Clinton ever could. 15

12

Sky, Bernie Sanders: Democratic Candidate Profile, Sky, 2016, Available from: http://news.sky.com/story/1632335/bernie-sanders-democratic-candidate-profile (Accessed: 20.03.2016.) 13 Bernie sanders, Reforming Wall Street, Bernie sanders, Available at: https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/ (Accessed: 20.03.2016.) 14 Berniesanders, On the Road: ‘A Future to Believe In’¸Bernie sanders, 2015. https://berniesanders.com/on-the-road-a-future-to-believein/ (Ac­ces­sed:20.03.2016.) 15 Ros Barkan, Is Hillary Really That Much More Electable Than Bernie?, Observer, 2016, Available at: http://observer.com/2016/02/is-hillary-really-that-much-more-electable-than-bernie/ (Accessed: 20.03.2015)

Candidates

187

Platform Ideologically, Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a democratic socialist, and most aspects of his platform can be viewed in accordance to this. His platform, as well as actions, are a bit further “left” than what most primary and general elections have gotten us used to so far. Sanders calls for a so called “political revolution”, one that involves reforming what he thinks are crucial areas where changes are necessary. He believes his platform revolves around topics that are of utmost importance for the United States, and that the future of American citizens depends on the way we deal with those issues. The pillars of politics and the directions of imperative changes that Sanders advocates are: income and economic inequality, availability in higher education and student loans, restoring democracy through a lesser influence of big money in politics, raising the minimum wage, dealing with climate change, immigration policy, ending racial and sexual discrimination, universal healthcare, reforming Wall Street, veteran issues, as well as strengthening and expanding social security.16 This Democratic nomination candidate believes economic inequality to be one of the chief problems of today, and he states that the gap between the very rich and the rest is at its highest point ever since the 1920s. Today, the 0.1% of the richest Americans owns as much wealth as the other 90%. Within this topic, Sanders advocates raising the taxes for the wealthy as well as the biggest corporation. Also, he calls for putting an end to exporting profit and jobs from the U.S. conducted by corporations in order to avoid paying the income tax in the country. 16

www.berniesanders.com/issues

188

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Additionally, he would introduce taxes for Wall Street speculators whom he blames for the loss of millions of American jobs and homes.17 Bernie Sanders advocates for universal health care, a so called “single payer” system where each taxpayer would have access to health care based on his/her income. “Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege.” He also thinks prescription drugs should be cheaper and more accessible to those who need them, contrary to the current situation in which pharmaceutical companies make huge profits by keeping those prices high.18 Another one of Bernie’s economic goals is raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020. By doing this, he aims to reduce the number of people living in poverty and provide them with a more dignified life.19 He calls for new legislation in the area of big financial institutions and banks whom he believes to be “too big to fail, too big to exist” in doing risky business, and whom he blames for the staggering of the American economy.20 Immigration policy is another important piece of his program. He believes it should be fair and humane, seeing as The United Sates themselves are a nation of immigrants who moved to the continent in pursuit of a better future for their families. Sanders thinks immigrant should be granted access to health care, and that the procedure of legalizing their status within the United States should be simplified.21 One of the most important reforms, and one that brought the most support to Sanders, is the access to education. According to him, public college tuitions are too high. He points out the examples of Norway, Finland, Sweden and Germany where parents can send their chil17

19 20 21 18

ibidem ibidem ibidem ibidem ibidem

Candidates

189

dren to public universities for free, depending on their income, without having to worry about getting into debt too deeply. Within this topic, Sanders believes it necessary to deal with student loans that are a giant burden to both students and their parents. He also thinks the interest rates on postgraduate student loans should be decreased, refinancing of debts allowed, and that those with the lowest income should be granted access to financial aid on the federal, state, and college level.22 As for foreign policy, this presidential candidate believes that war must be a last resort, before which we have to exploit any and all diplomatic activities in order to solve the problems at question.23 Another problem Sanders focuses on is reforming the prison system. American prisons are overpopulated, not enough attention is given to re-socialization programs, and more people are incarcerated than in China – the most populated country in the world that has an authoritarian political system. One of his initiatives deals with abolishing the death penalty.24 Sanders devotes a lot of his campaigning to the fact that an enormous number of people, most of them young, has police records due to marijuana possession, while, on the other hand, bank directors never had to answer and take responsibility for their harmful economic and speculative doings. He also calls for legalizing marijuana on a federal level, which is one of the reasons he has such wide support among liberally oriented young people.25 Dealing with climate change is another issue he focuses on – these changes were caused by human kind and we need to be aware of the importance of the problems they can lead to. Sanders criticizes Republicans and 22

24 25 23

ibidem ibidem ibidem ibidem

190

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

blames them for defending the profits of companies that pollute, rather than protecting the environment. He believes the U.S. should invest in clean and sustainable energy, make changes in their electric and transportation infrastructure, as well as lead the international community in the battle with climate changes, all the while aiming to solve the problems preventively.26 Campaign Bernie Sanders began his presidential campaign with an informal announcement on April 30th, 2015. In the beginning, this candidate who, additionally, serves as an independent member of Congress with the most years of service, was not credited with high chance of success. However, as the campaign went on and as the primary season was getting closer, his support continued to grow. Initially it came from white people, under the age of 40 and students. Later on, due to his immigration policies and advocating for raising the minimum wage, he started being more popular among Hispanic-American voters. The forefront of Bernie’s campaign includes what he believes to be the biggest issues for American citizens, and he focuses on them in his program. Throughout his campaign, he has criticized the stances of most Republicans regarding the reduction of social security, dealing with climate change, abortion, minimum wage and immigrants. Most of the discussions and political conflicts he was involved in were against the leading Republican, Donald Trump. Also, even though he indirectly took Hillary Clinton’s side in the beginning of the campaign when he agreed her email affairs should not be stressed anymore, their debates on various topics can, naturally, get quite heated. 26

ibidem

Candidates

191

Debates In the beginning of the Democratic debates, there were only three candidates which is significantly less compared to the Republican nomination candidates. After the Iowa caucus, Bryan O’Malley, who had very little support, decided to drop out of the race, leaving all eyes on Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. All of the debates were dominated by topics that are generally included in political discussions, such as higher education, universal health care, weapon reforms, past actions, economic issues, foreign policy etc. Bernie Sanders focused on these questions, believing them to be areas of necessary change, and those that will, should he become president, be included in the “political revolution” that America needs. One topic that may present a flaw in Bernie’s campaign is foreign policy – he had undefined and unclear stances, and it was only later in the campaign that he reflected on them somewhat more precisely. Donations Bernie Sanders is different from other candidates, first of all because he refused donations from big corporations in the very beginning, thus showing his ideological consistency. This move may prove as a challenge in the long run during the primaries, but it has also been an incentive for so-called “small” donors and donations of $1-199. It is those small donations that represent the biggest financial support in Bernie’s campaign. According to Crowdpac.com data, small donations ($1-199) make up 60% of all revenue from donations, the middle ones ($200-2.499) amount to 15%, and the big donations that go above $2.500 are about 20% of the entire amount.27

27

www.crowdpac.com/candidates/1235/bernie-sanders

192

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Additionally, Bernie heavily criticizes Super PACs and the unlimited amount of donations from individuals and legal entities, and thinks that this is the way tycoons and corporations can favor their own candidates, influence political actors and processes and undermine democracy.

Candidates

193

Milan Rankovic,* Slobodan Brkic**

Donald Trump According to his official website, “Donald J. Trump is a very definition of the American success story, continually setting the standards of excellence while expanding his interests in real estate, sports, and entertainment. He is the archetypal businessman – a deal maker without peer.“1 Donald Trump was born in 1946 in Queens, New York City. In his autobiography he states that he was quite a restless child. “I wanted to be the toughest kid in the neighbourhood and had a bad habit of mounting off to everybody while backing down to no one. Honestly, I was a bit of a troublemaker. “2 Regarding Trump’s education, he proved to be a disciplinary problem at The Kew Forest School, and was therefore sent to the New York Military Academy. After graduating high school, he attended Fordham University in New York and then transferred to the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated in 1968 with a B.S in economics and real estate.3 He has his own brand, and “The Trump Organization” is presented as „the world’s only

[email protected] [email protected] 1 Donald J. Trump, Biography, http://www.trump.com/biography/, (accessed: 8.3.2015.) 2 Donald J. Trump, Crippled America: How to make America great again, Threshold editions, 2015, p. 67. 3 Fox news, Donald Trump biography, Published August 02,2007, http:// www.foxnews.com/story/2007/08/02/donald-trump-biography.html, (accessed: 8.3.2016.) *

**

194

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

global luxury real estate super-brand, and is responsible for many of the world’s most recognized developments. Trump is renowned for its leadership in real estate development, sales and marketing, and property management representing the highest level of excellence and luxury in residential, office, and retail properties.“4 Michael D’Antonio says „It is not Trump’s outrageousness that makes him worthy of interest. More important is that he has succeeded, like no one else, in converting celebrity into profit.“5 Some analysts conclude that his greatest advantage is his anti-establishment direction.6 Aleksandar Gajic also states that “Trump’s ascendancy is mostly a consequence of anger coming from the Republican electorate and the conservative ’silent majority’ towards federal government policies.“7 Professor John McMurtry has an opinion about why the establishment dislikes Trump: „While Trump’s narrative is that the American Dream seeks recovery again, the dominant media and political elite relentlessly denounce him as an implicit fascist and disastrous fake. Something deeper is afoot. An untapped historic resentment is boiling up from underneath which has long been unspeakable on the political stage. Trump has mined it and proposed a concrete solution. From his promise to halve the Pentagon’s budget to getting the Congress off corporate-donation payrolls, the public money that the big corporate lobbies stand to lose from a Trump presidency are off the charts. But his attackers 4

Real estate portfolio, http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/, (accessed: 8.3.2016.) 5 Michael D’Antonio, What I learned writing Trump’s biography: My tour inside the peculiar mind of the GOP front-runner, 25.9.2015, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/donald-trumpbiography-what-i-learned-213188, accessed: 8.3.2016 6 Aleksandar Gajić, Fenomen Tramp, Politika, 7.3.2016, http://www. politika.rs/scc/clanak/350388/Pogledi/Fenomen-Tramp, (accessed: 6.4.2016.) 7 Ibidem.

Candidates

195

dare not recognize these explosive issues because they are all part of the problem. “8 Vladimir Vukasovic, a Serbian journalist, explains that Trump „as a kid of rich parents, had all he ever wanted, but, according to the American media, he couldn’t hide his business scams, and neither his vulgarity or aggressiveness. He is part of an elite that doesn’t like him because he is downgrading their reputation with transparent frauds and by openly offending other powerful people.“9 In our concluding remarks about this candidate, we offer a question like Stephen Lendman did „Should a billionaire be entrusted to lead the country?“10 Maybe he has succeeded to turn a celebrity into profit as Michael D’Antonio said but, leading the most powerful nation in the world is a huge responsibility. Who would let a standup comedian with zero political experience be commander in chief of the US armed forces? Second, we believe that he would not be able to tackle with all of the inner problems in the country. His free marketing has shown as an advantage to the people unsatisfied with the status quo, wanting someone to dare to be against the establishment and ruling party elites. But, there are so many black swans and even now we cannot predict the final outcome of primaries, let alone the general election.

8

Prof. John McMurtry, Joining the dots: Why the establishment hates Donald Trump, Globalresearch, 5.4.2016, http://www.globalresearch.ca/joining-the-dots-why-the-establishment-hates-donaldtrump/5518526, (accessed: 6.4.2016.) 9 Vladimir Vukasović, Toni Montana u Beloj kući, Politika, 2.4.2016, http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/352330/Pogledi/Toni-Montana-u-Beloj-kuci, (accessed: 7.4.2016.) 10 Stephen Lendman, Trump’s first 100 days as president, Global

research, 3.4.2016, http://www.globalresearch.ca/trumpsfirst-100-days-as-president/5518253, (accessed: 6.4.2016.)

196

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Konstantin Lijakovic*

Ted Cruz Ted Cruz was born in 1970 in Canada. His family was temporarily located in Calgary due to business commitments. Ted’s mother, Elizabeth, graduated mathematics at Rise University, and during the 1950s she was a pioneer in the field of computer science. Raphael Cruz, his father, was forced to leave his homeland Cuba in 1957. His father’s life story had great impact on Ted’s social profiling. Above all, being a man who escaped a totalitarian regime, he learned to value the institutions of liberty the United States were built upon. His father often said: “When we faced oppression in Cuba, I had a place to flee to. If we lose our freedom here, where do we go?”1 Besides that, Ted owes his father his strong religious beliefs. He often emphasizes the importance of Christianity, not only for himself personally, but for the entire nation as well. Ted Cruz graduated at Princeton University in 1992, and continued his education at the Harvard Law School in 1995. During college, he participated in debate clubs and was pronounced the best debater by the “U.S. National Debating Championship” in 1992, as well as the “North America Debating Championship” that same year. Cruz served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General in Texas from 2003 to 2008 before he was named Solicitor General. Ted is especially proud of this part of his career when he „...authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court * [email protected] 1

https://www.tedcruz.org/about/, (Accessed on June 7th 2016)

Candidates

197

briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court, and has won an unprecedented series of landmark national victories including defending U.S. sovereignty against the UN and the World Court in Medellin v. Texas, defending our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, defending the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capitol and the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.”2 He remained on that position until 2013 when he became Senator after winning against Paul Sadler. Cruz is a socially conservative politician. He stands firmly against abortion and marijuana legalization. He stated that the Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage was one of the darkest moments in U.S. history.3 However, his economic program is quite liberal. He advocates for a „flat tax“ which is a single tax of 10% that does not depend on the tax payers‘ assets, as well as for an income tax of 16%. These changes would result in a major revising of the existing pension and health care systems. He also thinks FED (the Federal Reserve System) should have less power, and believes its politics to be the main reason of the 2008 economic crisis. He is known for his “hard” foreign policy. While serving as Senator, he opposed the Iran deal, and he calls for a tougher foreign policy towards Russia and China. He objected the intervention in Libya, as well as the “nation building” missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ted Cruz announced his presidential campaign on March 23rd 2015 during a discussion with students at the Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. From the very beginning, he pointed out the values he stands for that 2

https://www.tedcruz.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AboutTed-Cruz.pdf, (Accessed on June 7th 2016) 3 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/06/27/Ted-CruzGay-marriage-ruling-makes-one-of-darkest-days-in-UShistory/9301435429916/, (Accessed on June 7th 2016)

198

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

make the core of his campaign to win the Republican nomination. Some of those include bringing the country back within the constitutional framework, religious freedom, a different economic policy and Christian values. During his campaign, he continually emphasized the importance of Christianity and its values which represent an indispensable part of his approach to politics and the conservative ideological background he comes from. What makes the Republican nomination race so different is the number of contesters which is quite high compared to the Democratic Party where there were only two candidates left as early as after the first caucus in Iowa. This fact determined, in the very beginning, who would take part in most of the discussions. During the debates, Cruz entered most arguments with the other conservative candidate, Marco Rubio. After Rubio dropped out, Ted, being aware of the similar ideological structure of their electorates, called Rubio’s voters to vote for him instead and help him beat Donald Trump. Trump also made a lot of accusations on his behalf, especially in regards to Cruz’s birthplace, but also considering other political topics. As Trump’s support grew, their competition became more heated. Even though John Kasich remained running as third in regards to the delegate count, the discussions between Cruz and Trump are what really shaped this Republican nomination race. When it comes to donations, the biggest part of this conservative candidate’s campaign was funded by the big ones – $2500 and above – that make up 40% of his entire donated funds. After that come the small ones, $1-199, summing up to 33% of his financial means. Finally, the middle donations, $200-2499 add up to around 25% of his funding.4 4

https://www.crowdpac.com/candidates/105110/ted-cruz, cessed on June 7th 2016)

(Ac-

Candidates

199

Stefan Tasic*, Edin Sinanovic**

Marco Rubio

Short Biography Marco Rubio was born in 1971 in Miami, Florida, as a son of Cuban immigrants. He graduated from the University of Florida in 1993, and later earned his degree in law at the University of Miami. He began his political career in 1998 when he was elected into the West Miami City Commission. The following year, he began serving in the House of Representatives in Florida’s Senate. His career was constantly in rising and resulted with him becoming a U.S. Senator. After six years of serving in the Senate, he decided to run for president in the Republican nomination race.1 Candidate’s Profile Republican nomination candidate Marco Rubio certainly belongs on the right side of the ideological specter, in the conservative position. The wide range that comes from his ideological stances is probably the most significant factor in his political actions and speeches, and strongly determines the policies he stands for. According to the American Conservative Union, he received the highest ratings for voting in Senate in terms of ideologi* [email protected] ** [email protected] 1

www.biography.com, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015)

200

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

cal consistency, while the National Review declared him the 17th most conservative Senator in 2013. Rubio owes a lot of his success in winning the Senate seat to the support of the Tea Party, a conservative movement. He strives to, as he says, bring back the American dream, one that he deems possible and considers himself to be a part of.2 In order to do that, he thinks there need to be conservative political reforms and limitations of power. He would fight against the establishment’s policies that advocate for a big government, he opposes Obamacare and objects to a budget plan that increases funds in order to create new jobs. He strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize same sex marriage on a federal level, and believes that decision should be made on the state level. He opposes abortion and legalizing marijuana in recreational purposes, bat is not against the medical use of cannabis. In terms of foreign policy, he strongly argued in favor of sanctions towards Iran regarding nuclear weapons. This range of ideas is surely compatible with his conservative orientation. Platform Marco Rubio dropped out of the Republican nomination race on March 15th 2016.3 However, the mark he has left on the entire competition was significant, and it is therefore important to look back the platform he presented to the American people. As the other Republican nomination candidates, Trump, Cruz and Kasich, Rubio positions on the right side of the ideological specter. The only candidate more conservative than him is Ted Cruz, 2

www.rubio.senate.gov, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) Dara Lind, Marco Rubio just quit the race. The establishment couldn’t save him., Vox, 2016, Available from: http://www.vox. com/2016/3/15/11242326/marco-rubio-drop-out, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015)

3

Candidates

201

while Donald Trump and John Kasich have slightly more liberal stances.4 The main topic Rubio stressed was family. According to him, all positive values of the American society come from the family nest. It is of utmost importance to recognize the role of marriage in preserving basic values and to protect it through various programs that would aim at helping married parents get out of poverty. Additionally, he wanted to assist farmers by abolishing government regulations, protect the rights of gun owners, protect senior citizens (by reforming social welfare and health care systems), support small business, honor veterans, and help workers in the New American Economy.5 Campaign After announcing his campaign on April 13th 2015, Rubio remained in the race for 11 months and 1 week. In this time, he managed to win in one of the states, Minnesota, with as much as 36,5% of the votes.6 His campaign slogan was “A New American Century”.7 His campaign manager was Terry Sullivan, while Warren Thompkins is believed to have also had a major impact on the campaign.8 4

InsideGov, Marco Rubio – Issues, InsideGov, Available at: http:// presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/50/Marco-Rubio, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) 5 MarcoRubio, MARKO ON THE ISSUES, MarcoRubio, Available from: https://marcorubio.com/issues/ 6 InsideGov, Marco Rubio – Campaign, InsideGov, Available at: http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/50/Marco-Rubio, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) 7 MarcoRubio, Homepage, MarcoRubio, Available from: https:// marcorubio.com, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) 8 Ballotpedia, Marco Rubio presidential campaign key staff and advisors, 2016, Ballotpedia, Available at: https://ballotpedia.org/Marco_Rubio_presidential_campaign_key_staff_and_advisors,_2016, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015)

202

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

The terrorist attacks on Paris in November 2015 influenced Rubio’s campaigning to be more dynamic in the following period. He stated that the United States cannot let in any more refugees because it is not possible to do background checks on people coming in from Syria.9 According to him, the Paris attacks can be labeled as a “positive development” for Americans. What happened in Paris contributed to the U.S. focusing on matters of security and the real threat of terrorism.10 Finally, we mustn’t forget the momentum Marco Rubio gained after the Iowa Caucus results. According to most poles, he was supposed to come in third – which did happen – but he was expected to win a much smaller percentage. In fact, Rubio was only 1% behind Donald Trump who won second place.11 However, the momentum did not last long and Rubio landed in fifth place in New Hampshire with disappointing results.12 Eventually, after losing in the primaries in Florida, Marco Rubio decided to drop out of the presidential race.13 9

Sahil Kapur, Paris Attacks Could Mark Turning Point in Republican Race,Bloomberg, 2015, Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-16/paris-terrorist-attacks-could-mark-a-turning-point-in-the-republican-primary, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) 10 Keith Brekhus, Marco Rubio Calls Paris Terrorist Attacks “A Positive Development” For Americans, PoliticusUSA, Available at: http:// www.politicususa.com/2015/11/23/marco-rubio-describes-paris-terrorist-attacks-a-positive-development-americans.html, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) 11 Amber Phillips, Marco Rubio’s very big night in Iowa, Washington Post, 2016, Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ the-fix/wp/2016/02/02/marco-rubios-very-big-night-in-iowa/, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) 12 Sean Gallitz, Marco Rubio “disappointed” in New Hampshire primary showing, CBS news, Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ marco-rubio-disappointed-in-new-hampshire-primary-showing/, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) 13 Tal Kopan, Marco Rubio drops out of presidential campaign after Florida loss, CNN, 2016, Available at: http://edition.cnn.

Candidates

203

Debates The expectations that the first Republican debate would revolve around Donald Trump came true.14 However, Marco Rubio managed to get out as the latent winner of the debate. He succeeded in being deemed the only Republican in the race that could actually beat Hillary Clinton who was already perceived as the obvious winner in the Democratic Party.15 Even though he gained some advantage from the previous encounters with his rivals, Rubio, in the midst of his momentum after winning a strong third place in Iowa, had a very weak appearance in the debate preceding New Hampshire. During the rush that was supposed to bring Rubio all the way to the general elections, the blow that decreased his chances and probably cost him the nomination came from Chris Christie. Christie accused Rubio of only reciting well prepared sentences, and managed to prove this by provoking Rubio into repeating previously stated things, thus affirming the accusation.16 com/2016/03/15/politics/marco-rubio-drops-out/, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) 14 Jake Miller, GOP debate: Trump, Bush, Cruz, Paul and Rubio mix it up, CBS news, 2015, Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/ media/gop-republican-debate-august-2015-highlights-analysis/, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015) 15 Sahil Kapur, Why Marco Rubio May Have Won the First Republican Debate, Bloomberg, 2015, Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-07/why-marco-rubio-mayhave-won-the-first-republican-debate, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015 ) 16 Michael Barbaro, Once Impervious, Marco Rubio Is Diminished by a Caustic Chris Christie, The New York Times, 2016, Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/chrischristie-marco-rubio-gop-debate.html, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015)

204

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Donations In February 2016, the New York Times published a report on funds raised by all candidates during their campaigns. Rubio came in a strong fourth place, not counting Jeb Bush who previously dropped out, with a total of $84, 6 million. Up until that moment, he had only spent $32, 9 million, meaning that his campaign was yet to grow.17 He finished his race with a sum of 92, 9 million American dollars.18

17

The New York Times, Which Presidential Candidates Are Winning the Money Race, The New York Times, 2016, Available from: http:// www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016campaign-money-race.html 18 InsideGov, Marco Rubio – Financials, InsideGov, Available at: http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/50/Marco-Rubio, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015)

VI PARTY DIVISIONS

Party Divisions

207

Teodora Markovic* and Ryan Bartley**

Party Divisions: Introduction

How are political parties relevant to presidential elections? “Every president since 1852 has been either a Republican or a Democrat, and in the post-World War II era, the two major parties’ share of the popular vote for president has averaged close to 95 percent. Rarely do any of the 50 states elect a governor who is not a Democrat or a Republican.”1 What these facts tell us is that the Democratic and Republican party dominate the US political system, hence their predominance in the presidential race as well. Although theoretically it is possible to have a third party candidate win, come November every four * [email protected] ** [email protected]

USA ELECTIONS in Brief. BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS U.S. Department of State

1

208

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

years, we normally see either a Democrat or a Republican being elected President of the United States of America. An interesting particularity of this political system is the process each party goes through to nominate a candidate for a general election. It is an election of its own. Up until the middle of June in an election year, the states have primary elections during which citizens vote among candidates of the same party, and the final outcome is one nominee who will represent the whole party in the general election. This means that the campaign for the nomination is as important as the campaign for the presidency. So, if you want to successfully predict the next president (or at least try to), understanding not only the differences between the two major parties, but also the ones within them, is key – that will also be the aim of this chapter. The parties and their factions that this chapter will address are listed in Table 1, and Table 2 shows the success rate of each party in the Presidential Elections through history, in other words the list of presidents that each party has had in office.

Faction

Progressives

Liberals

Centrist

Establishment

Evangelic

Tea Party

Libertarians

Party

Democratic

Democratic

Democratic

Republican

Republican

Republican

Republican

Nancy Pelosi Hillary Clinton

strong and involved government, free trade, civil liberties, less militaristic social liberalism, economic conservatism, more militaristic, less government spending

free market, less government in general

lower taxes, less government spending

religious liberty

Rand Paul

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio

Mike Huckabee

Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush

Bernie Sanders

universal health care, fight against global warming, party transformation

emphasis on classic conservative values

Notable individuals

Main Ideas

Table 1- Party divisions

Party Divisions

209

210

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Table 2- Presidents of the United States of America2

2

No.

President

Party

In Office

1

George Washington

non-partisan

1789-1797

2

John Adams

Federalist

1797-1801

3

Thomas Jefferson

Democratic-Republican

1801-1809

4

James Madison

Democratic-Republican

1809-1817

5

James Monroe

Democratic-Republican

1817-1825

6

John Quincy Adams

Democratic-Republican

1825-1829

7

Andrew Jackson

Democratic

1829-1837

8

Martin Van Buren

Democratic

1837-1841

9

William H. Harrison

Whig

1841-1841

10

John Tyler

Whig

1841-1845

11

James K. Polk

Democratic

1845-1849

12

Zachary Taylor

Whig

1849-1850

13

Millard Fillmore

Whig

1850-1853

14

Franklin Pierce

Democratic

1853-1857

15

James Buchanan

Democratic

1857-1861

16

Abraham Lincoln

Republican

1861-1865

17

Andrew Johnson

Democratic

1865-1869

18

Ulysses S. Grant

Republican

1869-1877

19

Rutherford B. Hayes

Republican

1877-1881

20

James Garfield

Republican

1881

21

Chester A. Arthur

Republican

1881-1885

22

Grover Cleveland

Democratic

1885-1889

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/Presidents (retrieved April 11 2016)

211

Party Divisions 23

Benjamin Harrison

Republican

1889-1895

24

Grover Cleveland

Democratic

1895-1897

25

William McKinley

Republican

1897-1901

26

Theodore Roosevelt

Republican

1901-1909

27

William Howard Taft

Republican

1909-1913

28

Woodrow Wilson

Democratic

1913-1921

29

Warren G. Harding

Republican

1921-1923

30

Calvin Coolidge

Republican

1923-1929

31

Herbert Hoover

Republican

1929-1933

32

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Democratic

1933-1945

33

Harry S. Truman

Democratic

1945-1953

34

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Republican

1953-1961

35

John F. Kennedy

Democratic

1961-1963

36

Lyndon B. Johnson

Democratic

1963-1969

37

Richard M. Nixon

Republican

1969-1974

38

Gerald R. Ford

Republican

1974-1977

39

James Carter

Democratic

1977-1981

40

 Ronald Reagan

Republican

1981-1989

41

George H. W. Bush

Republican

1989-1993

42

William J. Clinton

Democratic

1993-2001

43

George W. Bush

Republican

2001-2009

44

Barack Obama

Democratic

2009-2017

45

2017-

212

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Teodora Markovic*1

The Democratic Party How was the Democratic Party founded? The origins of the Democratic Party are to be found in a group rallied behind Thomas Jefferson at the verge of the 19h century, known as the Democratic Republicans. The party was formed after the Constitution started to be implemented. Namely, there was a divide in interpretation of who was supposed to be in the government – the Federalists had an elitist while the Democratic Republicans had a more populist view. Despite the fact that the latter was more inclusive, it was still limited to white property owners. However, The Democratic Party as we know it today was formed around President Andrew Jackson in the 1820s and the 1830s. Over the course of the past 2 centuries it has proven to be rather flexible and has with changes survived until today. The Democratic Party has passed a lot of important legislation such as the 19th amendment, The Social Right Act, The Civil Rights Act, and The Affordable Care Act (the so called ObamaCare). Also, this party has given American political history a great many prominent figures such as: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, to name but a few. Who are the Democrats? “There are several core beliefs that tie our party together: Democrats believe that we’re greater together than * E-mail: [email protected]

Party Divisions

213

we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.”1 However, this doesn’t give us the answer we were looking for. Simply enough, a Democrat would be either a person who, as a member of the party, has been elected into a specific public office, or a person who has voted for him/her at a specific election. Now, the more difficult question would be: What are the values or, rather, core beliefs that distinguish a Democrat? Views rooted in the liberal philosophy, believing that the main role of government is to oversee and regulate the economy, provide universal health etc. or to put it more simply a robust administration with a lot of “jurisdiction” – generally, these views can be assigned to Democrats. Among other beliefs, they support the following stances: pro-choice, pro-progressive taxation, against restricted immigration, against capital punishment. It is exactly the slight difference in such stances as well as the modern diversity of particular interests that drives the division forces into forming different factions within the party. Although nowadays you can identify quite a few factions within the party which vary from left to right of the spectrum, the following text will address only the most notable and/or most organized: Progressive, Liberal and Centrist faction. The Factions: progressive, liberal and centrists “Progressive Democrats of America was founded in 2004 to transform the Democratic Party and our country.”2 ,,Progressive Democrats of America is guided by the progressive vision of a renewed nation, fully integrated into the community of nations and peoples, respectful of the rule of law at home and abroad and committed to https://www.democrats.org/about/our-party (retrieved April 11 2016) http://www.pdamerica.org/about-us/mission, (Accessed on April 11th, 2016)

1 2

214

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

the universal values of human dignity, justice and respect and stewardship of the planet on which we live.”3 How to transform the party? Well, to make it a stronger one that will listen to the citizens rather than to corporate interest. The progressive faction is, therefore, known to advocate social and economic equality and they are also big supporters of direct democracy. The issues they emphasize are universal health care, fight against global warming, stopping the TPP fast track, end wars and occupations etc. When you say “I am a liberal”, be aware that depending on where you are, this will have different meanings. In the United States, being a liberal is associated with endorsing large expenditures of the government, often for different social programs (education, health care etc.); whereas in Europe, the meaning is the exact opposite. Liberals in the U.S. are also known as fighters for different civil liberties, supporters of free trade and a less militaristic foreign policy. To put it simple, the Liberals are big fans of government institutions and their power to organize, distribute, or redistribute in order to make the lives of the people better. The big expansion of these ideas came with the Great Depression. Liberal economic policies have emerged as a solution to a large problem and have, for the next half of century, been the undisputed way of handling the economic system. The New Deal that president Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced was considered the epitome of such policy. Nowadays, the situation has changed once again. It is widely regarded that big government machinery is too expensive and an unnecessary weight on the ankles of a country, dragging it down. So efforts are now directed towards minimizing, rather than maximizing public 3

http://www.pdamerica.org/about-us/basic-principles, (Accessed on April 11th, 2016)

Party Divisions

215

spending. Still, the public is also leaning more towards the left side of the spectrum making different efforts to minimize inequality. Whether it will lead back to the resurrection of Keynesian economics, we are yet to see.4 Centrists are referred to as Neoliberal Democrats, Moderate Democrats or Clinton Democrats. This faction has emerged in the late 1980s because the Democrats had been suffering difficult losses in the political arena. Basically, their goal was to stir the party more towards the centre of the spectrum, having at the core ideas of social liberalism and economic conservatism. They are advocates of using more military force and reducing government spending on welfare programs. The latter proved to be an important difference that enabled this faction to have key figures in power not only in the party, but also in the country as a whole. Deregulation became popular and, with the centrists at the helm of the party, the Democrats started winning elections again. References: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4

http://www.democrats.org http://www.pdamerica.org https://www.whitehouse.gov Meyers, William P. 2004. A Brief History of the Democratic Party USA ELECTIONS in Brief. BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS U.S. Department of State

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) was a British economist, best known for his contribution to the field of macroeconomics.

216

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Ryan Bartley*5

The Republican Party How was the Republican Party founded? In 1854, the Whig party dissolved and the new Republican Party formed out of its ashes. A group of former members, together united in their conviction that slavery was wrong, put together the platforms for the new entity in American politics with anti-slavery at its center. At the time, the issue over the implementation of slavery was dividing Americans everywhere and now that people were moving westwards, the argument over whether the new annexed territories and states would be slave states or free states was paramount. Very quickly, the newly formed Republican Party gained popularity in the North. In 1860, their second-ever presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency. Democrats, especially in the South, were furious over the new government’s convictions and the domino effect of succession kicked off. It wasn’t long after that the Civil War began. Who are the Republicans today? Today, Republicans are generally more conservative than their Democratic opponents. Keeping American traditional values, enforcing present laws, abiding by the Constitution, and supporting the classical free market are the main tenets in which the Republican Party clings. Security-wise, especially since the 9/11 attacks, * E-mail: [email protected]

Party Divisions

217

the party has pushed for a powerful military in addition to functioning border control. In 2016, a couple of the most important things to Republicans are balancing the budget and religious liberty. The Factions: Establishment, Evangelicals, Tea Party and Libertarians The largest faction, and also the one with the loudest voice regarding party doctrine is, of course, the establishment. Its ideology changing with the times, the Grand Old Party establishment nowadays looks to former President Ronald Reagan as their benchmark Republican leader. Candidates from this branch exemplify classic conservative values and typically have similar ideology to the party base in the time. Evangelicals and other religious sects in America typically like to vote Republican due to the party’s focus on preserving religious liberty through the present day understanding of the constitution and most importantly the Religion Clause. In recent years, the tea party movement has gained increasing support within the Republican Party. The name, “Tea Party Movement” comes from the original Boston Tea Party and was adopted because of the movement’s conviction to lower taxes. Its members, many of whom have a combination of libertarian and populist ideology, believe that the federal budget should be upfront addressed. They propose lowering government spending in order to pay off the debt, but also to lower taxes at the same time. While libertarians have their own separate party in the United States of America, the two-party dominated system of American politics has resulted in many libertarians joining the ranks of the Republican Party. In recent years, former Texas Senator Ron Paul and later his son Rand Paul have been leaders of this faction. Both of

218

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

them widely appeal to a libertarian faction base that is quite liberal on social issues and quite conservative free market activist when it comes to fiscal policy. References: 6. 7.

https://gop.com/principles-for-american-renewal/ http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-partyfounded

Party Divisions

219

Ryan Bartley*6

Party Divisions All of the G.O.P. head honchos who initially believed in the coast-to-victory ticket for the Republican establishment against Secretary Clinton were blind-sided and their plans were completely trumped forever. This is the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary Race. The American G.O.P. is faced with growing rifts within the party that have huge implications on the selection of a candidate to go up against the Democrat’s to-be contender. No longer does the notion of modern conservatism adequately serve as an umbrella that will peacefully cover and unite libertarians, evangelicals, tea partiers, and general fiscal conservatives under one single umbrella against the dreaded left-wing rain. Disputes between party members on policy are driving many against the establishment with extreme enthusiasm for change. As a result, 2016 has been the year of the anti-establishment candidate and also the year of struggle for the Grand Old Party. In spring 2015, most republicans encountered with the question, “How do you feel about the upcoming election next year?” would likely reply saying that they are excited for an easy victory over the Democrats’ only candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Many were ready to back the early-on establishment favorite Governor Jeb Bush of Florida or the young energetic establishment Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. However, at the same time, if one asked a typical republican or in* [email protected]

220

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

dependent who leans more right-wing, “How do you feel about the way the Republican Congress is acting right now?” many would reply that they are dissatisfied and sick of the way that their party is representing them because of the lack of work that they are getting done. Such a combination of feelings early on, when the establishment candidates weren’t the most charismatic candidates on the block, played into factor as the haughty new anti-establishment candidate that had something new to offer to the party entered the race to become the Republican nominee. One hot humid summer New York morning, a celebrity real-estate mogul came down his escalator in his tower that is named after him just like he has done many other times before. If it crossed his mind that this would be the last day of his former life, he hasn’t said. However, without a doubt, when Donald J. Trump descended into that sea of reporters and supporters on the floor of Trump Tower in Manhattan that day, the man once known for his real-estate empire, TV personality, and his huge sums of money that he had accumulated by utilizing the above mentioned attributes of his life, became known as the man who shook up American politics forever. Turning to the next chapter in his successful life, Mr. Trump made the announcement that he would run for President of the United States to “Make America Great Again”. Trump’s decision to run was initially not taken very seriously, but very quickly, the whole world was shocked as it became evident that the real estate mogul’s message was being heard and embraced after the first polls came out showing that Trump was on top across the board. Immediately, anti-establishment voters flocked to him loving the notions that he wasn’t controlled by campaign financing donors, was a proven businessman, and (perhaps most of all) that he wasn’t closely affiliated with the present party establishment.

Party Divisions

221

While Mr. Trump’s populist message was embraced by many, lots of traditional republican voters saw the businessman’s rhetoric as something that could hinder the party’s chance to win the general election in the case he was elected as the nominee. As a result, other anti-establishment voters gathered around the anti-political correctness Doctor Benjamin Carson from Michigan. With his inspirational success story and his potential to suede African American voters to the G.O.P. since he himself was African American made him very sought after by many who looked more at the finish line against Hillary rather than the short run against charismatic Trump and the other candidates. Unfortunately for Ben, his softspoken temperament and his lack of charisma would be his downfall in a race where media coverage was largely following controversy. With Trump and Carson early on gathering over 50% in polls, the other 50% was mostly divided between the party basis and split between a variety of different candidates generally coming from political backgrounds. These candidates, namely Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, and Rand Paul, struggled immensely in this new kind of election in which their governor or senator backgrounds would not help them as much as it would have in prior elections. Even though Ted Cruz was the senator from Texas, his far-right campaign continually attempted to separate the senator from the other career politicians in the field. In fact, the separation went both ways with various congressmen often telling the media that Ted Cruz was one of the most hated people in congress and that nobody liked him. Such contempt from the establishment in Washington actually backfired on them as it added to Cruz’s populist appeal because to voters he could be seen as a party reformer, enemy, and outsider of the current G.O.P. breakfast club.

222

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Perhaps the most anti-establishment candidate, yet also the most overlooked by voters, was Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. The Duke-educated eye doctor-turnedpolitician from the American Libertarian flagship family (his father Ron Paul ran for president in 2008 and 2012) came to the conclusion that in order to have a shot at the presidency, he had to run under the republican ticket even as a libertarian. Since social issues such as marijuana legalization, abortion, and gay rights are being more accepted among republicans, especially younger people, Paul was the early favorite among young voters who wanted an alternative to Secretary Clinton or Socialist Vermont Senator Sanders. However, following clashes with Trump in the first couple of debates and a low media presence, Paul’s campaign had a very rough time taking off from the starting block. In the future though, with the major part of Republicans becoming more socially liberal yet remaining fiscally conservative, Paul’s libertarian policies and strict adherence to the constitution may attract more than just college students and lifelong libertarians in the upcoming years. Especially if the country’s political party fissure widens so that the democrats become more popularly socialist, the Republican Party’s only chance to compete will be to abandon the far right social policies that it preaches currently and switch to Paul-type ideology. Will the G.O.P. later on become the party of Rand Paul-type men and women in such a changing American political climate? It is a strong possibility, but it will not happen this year. Social conservatives, including their main branch of Evangelicals, pull the Republican Party’s social policies to the right and widen the gap of common understanding between the progressive Democrats and the conservative Republicans. With stances such as staunch opposition to abortion, vehement anti-gay marriage policies, and hesitance to support the legalization of marijuana, the social

Party Divisions

223

conservatives drive the G.O.P.’s stances on such issues. Unfortunately for the G.O.P., the vast majority America’s millennial generation regardless of party-affiliation disagree with such stances. Alienating such a large group of voters could not only be a catastrophic miscalculation for the party in terms of driving away potential voters, but it also gives the Democrats ammunition against conservatives by calling them “bigoted, old-fashion, out-of-date, intolerant, and discriminatory.” By eliminating such policies, the G.O.P. could highlight their platform on liberal economics against the Democrats’ growing interventionist and socialist economic policies. However, social conservatives stall the economic conversation, bringing up the importance of standing up for traditional religious values and backing candidates that support their beliefs. In 2016, Kasich and Rand Paul didn’t attract these types of voters. Most social conservatives found their man in Texas Senator Ted Cruz, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, or Dr. Ben Carson. As a surprise to many, the not-widely-regarded-as-religious Donald Trump pulled a large portion of this demographic in most primary polls, especially after he expressed the importance of his Christian faith to voters. Domestic issues aside, party factions continue to clash with each other regarding foreign policy. The age of Neo-Con dominance is over. Now the conversation has turned from primarily interventionist to varieties of inconsistent and different stances. While the war-hawks retain their voice through influential party members such as Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham, the majority of candidates are shifting to a plethora of stances. Rand Paul, being the most isolationist, argued for complete non-involvement apart from dialogue and aid in Syria. Others, such as Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, advocated prospects that involve aiding the rebels and helping Assad while continuing strikes against ISIS. Ted

224

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Cruz, though, pushes for absolute annihilation of ISIS by any means possible. Trumplicans, whose foreign policy can be defined simply as a case-by-case policy, argue for crushing ISIS with full force if deemed necessary, keeping surveillance on mosques, imposing restrictions on people from Muslim countries entering the U.S., and solving disputes in Eastern Europe through compromise/ dialogue with Putin. At the same time however, Trumplicans are NATO-skeptics and question whether the U.S. should be protecting so many countries around the world for little economic help in return. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, insists on crushing ISIS, increasing security on every front, and standing against Vladimir Putin.

VII HOW WILL THE OUTCOME OF ELECTION AFFECT WESTERN BALKANS/ SERBIA?

How will the Outcome of Election Affect Western Balkans/Serbia?

227

Nevena Mancic*, Jelena Djukic** and Pavle Jakšić***

How will the outcome of the elections affect Western Balkans/Serbia? (Foreign policy) Bernie Sanders’ approach In terms of the American foreign policy and the outcome of the elections, both major parties need to be aware of the fact that scoring political points is less relevant than global integrity and security. When it comes to Bernie Sanders’ doctrine and view on foreign policy, one thing is certain: he pays attention to the crossing between domestic and international and between political and economic.1 His conclusions about what a most suitable foreign leader looks like are that, according to American foreign policy history, the U.S. cannot afford another leader whose decisions in the international arena would harm American interests in the long run. More instability and more animosity against the U.S. will make it more difficult for the country to accomplish its goals.2 Bernie’s take on the Islamic State group is that current * E-mail: [email protected] ** E-mail: [email protected] *** E-mail: [email protected] 1

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/ articles/2016-02-29/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-doctrine-actually-makes-a-lot-of-sense (Accessed: 17 April 2016) 2 Ibidem

228

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

U.S. policies fit right into this pattern: it is expensive and counterproductive, creating more enemies at great domestic cost.3 Those claims show that Sanders actually has a very realistic position about American security and their foreign policy. Connecting the local with the global, and the political with the economic, he appears to be a foreign policy president who is keeping up with the globalized 21st century world.4 Current outcomes and predictions about the elections are not working in Sanders’ favor, and it is yet to be seen how the race will eventually end. Another important thing about his view on foreign policy is a perspective of “skeptical restraint”.5 He shows a great consideration in terms of the cost of military force and about Policy of regime change, meaning that he shares Obama’s views in that matter. He does not believe the United States can or should police the world and he understands that, without restraint abroad, U.S. would never be able to focus on rebuilding the country back home.6 In respect of his realistic views, he does not have a very high chance of winning this race. One thing is certain, Bernie Sanders revolutionized attitudes and actions by pointing out that this year’s elections can affect the whole world, not only the United States. He proved that the basic economic principles of American society are not unquestionable and untouchable, and that America can and should accept that other countries may have different ways of achieving socio-economic development and progress. When it comes to the Balkans, Serbia in particular, Bernie Sanders’ political views showed a bit of hope in change of approach. Hoewever, Sanders is 3

Ibidem Ibidem 5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-realist/2016/03/08/c7f3422e-e48a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html (Accessed: 17 April 2016) 6 Ibidem 4

How will the Outcome of Election Affect Western Balkans/Serbia?

229

far from pacifist. He supported the use of force in the Balkans during Bill Clinton’s administration, and the Afghanistan intervention after 9/11.7 Even though he will probably not be the Democratic presidential candidate, Sanders has shown considerable efforts in changing the perspective of American foreign policy, therefore we can at least hope that some of his conclusions will wind up in the program of the future president. Hilary Clinton as president When it comes to foreign policy and the difference between the two major parties, Democrats are traditionally believed to be more concerned about human rights issues, devoted to enhancing universal values over the globe, and more skeptical when it comes to the use of military force and thus more prone to diplomatic measures. However, this is not necessarily true. The moment the President enters the White House, the process becomes entrenched into numerous lobbying policies that can easily change his or her mind. Interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria are all good examples, and Hillary strongly supported all three of them. When it comes to Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy platform, it is worth mentioning that she is the only major candidate with experience in the executive branch of the government. One might think this would be an asset for her, yet she barely mentioned her experience as Secretary of State during this presidential run. In fact, in one of her interviews from a couple of years ago, she was not able to highlight her main success as Secretary of the State.8 Either way, in the heat of the presidential race, what Hillary finds most flattering 7

Ibidem http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/10/hilla r y- c a n t- n a me - to p - a cco m p li shm e nt - as- sec retary-ofstate/#594d9eb646a4, (Accessed: 17 April 2016)

8

230

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

about her foreign policy experience concerns supporting the raid against Bin Laden, the seize-fire in Gaza, and imposing sanctions on Iran.9 When it comes to general foreign policy views, “Defending America and our core values is one of the cornerstones of Hillary’s campaign. When America leads with principle and purpose, other people and governments are eager to join us.’’10 This means that Hilary still sees America as an omnipotent global leader of the 21st century that has the ability to shape the global future and processes in the world. Therefore, she will probably not hesitate in using military force over diplomatic measures, in her neo-war against terrorism, while aiming to protect human rights and democracy all over the globe.11 Yet again, in her eyes, America is an indispensable nation, or how she stated: “(…) If the United States does not lead, there is not another leader. There is a vacuum. And we have to lead, if we’re going to be successful.”12 Considering the general world’s preoccupation with the refugee crisis, Ukrainian crisis, Iran nuclear deal, and ISIS, the Balkans haven’t been in the center of attention for Hillary, not even on the margins. This might sound surprising, considering her history with this region. As “First Lady” of the United States, Hillary strongly supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Now it seems that the US interest in this region is lost. However, while Secretary of State, Hillary was prone to talk about “unfinished business in the Balkans’’ or, to be more pre9

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/20/ secstate-record/, (Accessed: 17 April 2016) 10 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/, (Accessed: 17 April 2016) 11 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/, (Accessed: 17 April 2016) 12 http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm, (Accessed: 17 April 2016)

How will the Outcome of Election Affect Western Balkans/Serbia?

231

cise, about the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the aftermath of the Dayton agreement. This can only imply that the position of Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina is still considered an issue that needs to be dealt with. During her visit to the Balkans as Secretary of State in 2010, the first city Hillary visited was Sarajevo. When Clinton visited again in 2012 along with the EU’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, she could not help but mention the unfinished business again, and point out that for her this is akin to “family business.”13 Apart from the matter of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for Hillary there is still an open question with Kosovo and Metohija and its self-proclaimed independence recognition by Belgrade. This was, among other things, the most highlighted topic during her visit to the Balkan region in 2012 just before she left the office of Secretary of State. Currently, Albania and Pristina are the biggest fans of the Clinton family in the entire Balkan region. Their support goes from naming streets and installing statues of Bill Clinton on the squares, to openly supporting and fundraising for Hilary’s Presidential campaign.14 One thing is certain about Hilary’s foreign policy views – she deeply believes not only that U.S. has to affirm its leading role in the world, but also that it still has a stake in the Balkans. Aside from the unfinished business she often mentions, the current events in light of the ongoing refugee crisis, as well as the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, can easily set her eyes back on the Balkans. It is not unfamiliar that the Balkans was flooded 13

http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2012_11_01/EU-US-officials-attend-to-unfinished-business-in-the-Balkans/, (Accessed: 17 April 2016) 14 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/albanians-loyal-to-hillary-clinton-presidential-race-04-18-2016, (Accessed: 17 April 2016)

232

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

by a wave of refugees mainly consisting of Middle Eastern population coming from war zones. Also, it is not much of a secret how controversial it is that a number of people from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo* have decided to flee to the Middle East and fight on the ISIS side. The current turmoil and political instability in Macedonia can just be added to the pile of unfinished business. Yet again, Europe has not showed enough agility in dealing with any of the current issues. Should Hillary become the new President, we will most likely be witnessing a major U.S. comeback to the Balkans. First of all, she would be interested in finishing what she obviously perceives as her and her husband’s legacy – precisely, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. Second of all, with the EU caught in the middle with its own development problems, a few of which are BREXIT, integration of refugees, EU economy, and enlargement, and Russia showing its teeth again, Hillary will not be eager to let a vacuum appear in the Balkans.

How will the Outcome of Election Affect Western Balkans/Serbia?

233

Marko Despotovic*

How will the presidential election outcome affect the United States’ foreign policy towards Western Balkans? The United States political system has a single executive branch consisting of the president who is head of the state. This model is known as the presidential political system. The Constitution grants the president a very wide range of authority. “He is simultaneously the head of state, he holds the executive power and is Commander in Chief. Above that, he has the right of legislative initiative, as well as the right to veto any bill or other legal document passed by Congress (which can then be outvoted by a 2/3 majority in Congress).”1 In terms of entities that create U.S. foreign policy, the president and Congress have the most power. However, in the post-World War Two era, it is the president who dominates this process. The U.S. National Security Council is an institution with a significant role in the process of creating foreign policy. Aside from the President, other members of the Council include the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is also the main military * [email protected] 1

Ivo Visković, Između zavere i birokratskog haosa – kako se stvara spoljna politika SAD, Anagraf, Beograd, 2007, str. 75.

234

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

advisor within the National Security Council. Also, there is the Director of National Intelligence.2 In a nutshell, the above listed comprise the collective mastermind behind U.S. foreign policy and they have a significant impact on POTUS’s decision making. It is worth mentioning that the Secretary of State represents the State Department, while the Secretary of Defense is Pentagon’s representative. As you can see, a number of stakeholders participates in a well-established policy making process. While the president does play the biggest role in the system, a superpower such as the United States already has a determined direction of foreign policy. Therefore, even though a new president may bring some changes, which has happened throughout history, they are never big enough to significantly influence the foundations and a predetermined foreign policy course. In regards to Western Balkans, this region has been the center of U.S. attention during the 1990s and the civil war in Yugoslavia. One might conclude that the more politically stable the Balkans are, the less interest the United States will have. It is important to point out that the U.S. works along with the European Union, and together they act as mediators in the process of regional conciliation. Aside from regional stability, what interests the United States most is the independence of the socalled state of Kosovo, the EU integration processes in Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the Russian Federation’s influence over this part of Europe. Donald Trump Donald J. Trump is supposed to be a candidate who would bring some change into U.S. foreign policy. This is 2

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc, (Accessed on April 23rd 2016)

How will the Outcome of Election Affect Western Balkans/Serbia?

235

easy to gather from his statements, but the general public often criticizes him for his lack of knowledge concerning international relations. Some even consider him an isolationist, though this claim is somewhat disputable. His foreign policy would mainly focus on bilateral relations with China, especially in terms of trade. He advocates for a stronger U.S. army, but also a more careful and calculated approach in using military power. This may indicate that the United States would shift more responsibility to their allies in regards to future military interventions. In certain ways, Trump has criticized NATO, and also believes that the U.S. invests too much money in protecting allies such as Japan and South Korea. American-Russian relations have the biggest consequences for the European Union, thus also affecting the Western Balkans region. Unlike Hillary Clinton’s sharp rhetoric on Russia and President Putin, Donald Trump would not bring in any more animosity in foreign policy towards the Russian Federation. He has already publicly stated that he does not oppose Russia’s air strike in Syria, or the bombing of the Islamic State group. The tension between the U.S. and Russia definitely has effect on some of the Balkan states, especially Serbia. Additionally, the Ukrainian crisis had a major influence on Europe, and Serbia was pressured to adjust its foreign policy to the EU’s and impose sanctions on Russia. Should Donald Trump become president, he might make some changes in U.S. foreign policy towards Russia, and consequently towards Europe and Western Balkans as well. However, certain goals the United States have set in this region, namely regional stability and promoting the independence of Kosovo*, are unlikely to change in the near future.

VIII REČNIK AMERIČKIH IZBORA

Rečnik američkih izbora

239

Reč unapred Svake četiri godine, „prvog utorka, posle prvog ponedeljka meseca novembra“, pored izbora za jednu trećinu Senata i celokupni Predstavnički dom Kongresa (treba naglasiti da se članovi Predstavničkog doma biraju na svake dve godine, dok mandati senatora traju šest godina), biraju se i Predsednik odnosno Potpredsednik Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Imajući u vidu kolosalnu moć i značaj Sjedinjenih Američkih Država u globalizovanim svetskim odnosima, kao i ovlašćenja Predsednika (posebno u oblasti spoljne i bezbednosne politike), od toga ko će tog dana biti pobednik na izborima, odnosno ko će osvojiti „čarobni broj“ od 270 elektorskih glasova, zavisi mnogo toga; ne samo građani Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, nego u većoj ili manjoj meri i drugi narodi sveta. Ne treba da čudi, otuda, besprimeran interes za ishod ovog izbornog nadmetanja gotovo u svakom delu Zemljine kugle. Ovogodišnji izbori nisu nikakav izuzetak: inače, sve ono što se bude dešavalo na dan izbora 6. novembra zapravo je završnica jednog dugog, iscrpljujućeg i skupog nadgornjavanja između aktuelnog predsednika Sjedninjenih Američkih Država, Baraka Obame i njegovih izazivača, pre svih kandidata Republikanske stranke, Mita Romnija. Tim povodom, Centar za društveni dijalog i regionalne inicijative kao organizator Seminara studenata Fakulteta političkih nauka, pojačao je svoje snage saradnjom sa Udruženjem za studije SAD u Srbiji i svoj VI po redu seminar, koji se ove godine održava upravo u vreme predsedničkih izbora u Sjedinjenim Američkim Dr-

240

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

žavama, posvetio upravo ovoj temi. Pored mnogobrojnih drugih aktivnosti, ideja organizatora je bila da se studenti diplomskih akademskih master studija Sjedinjenih Američkih Država na Univerzitetu u Beogradu – Fakultetu političkih nauka delatno uključe u ostvarivanje ovog poduhvata. Pored pažljivog praćenja izbora, odnosno samih kandidata i glavnih tema u kampanjama, jedna od važnijih stvari bila je i prevod upravo ovog Pojmovnika američkih izbora na srpski jezik. Sam pojmovnik je inače deo Internet sajta Stejt dipartmenta koji je posvećen američkim izborima.1 Iako su u samom prevodu Pojmovnika učestvovali gotovo svi studenti diplomskih akademskih master studija SAD na Univerzitetu u Beogradu – Fakultetu političkih nauka generacije 2012 / 2013, želimo naročito da istaknemo rad i zalaganje naših koleginica i kolega: Jelene Mitić, Ivane Katić, Božane Mirkov, Tamare Divjakinje, Nevene Popović, Borisa Baščarevića, Darka Čačića, Miloša Nikolića, Milana Paprice, Ivana Vejvode, Petra Glišića, Miloša Subote... Takođe, dragocen doprinos u prevodu ovog pojmovnika dao je i kolega Nikola Jokanović; lekturu pojmovnika uradila je Božana Mirkov. Poduhvat u celini ne bi bio moguć bez pomoći ambasade Sjedinjenih Američkih Država u Beogradu, a posebno gospođe Tijane Hrkalović iz Odeljenja za javne poslove ambasade. Najposle, podrška za štampanje Pojmovnika, kao i za održavanje samog skupa, stigla je od naših prijatelja iz Balkanskog fonda za demokratiju. Želimo da istaknemo da je saradnja koju smo imali sa Centrom za društveni dijalog i regionalne inicijative, kako povodom ovog projekta, tako i u nekolikim sličnim dešavanjima ranije, za nas bila istinsko zadovoljstvo. Gos1

Tekst se u originalu može pronaći na sledećoj internet adresi: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/12/20111 228115119tegdirb2.994281e-02.html#axzz2AivtSg4o (pristupljeno 05. 05. 2012.)

Rečnik američkih izbora

241

podi Stevanu Nedeljkoviću, Branislavu Nešoviću, Dušanu Milenkoviću, Branku Vučiniću, Milanu Krstiću i Veljku Petroviću, dugujemo zahvalnost, ne samo zato što je ovaj Pojmovnik ugledao svetlost dana, nego što je i ovaj skup posvećen predsedničkim izborima u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama 2012. godine bio moguć. Naposletku, a u skladu sa drevnom latinskom maksimom da „reči lete a da ono što je zapisano ostaje,“ nadamo se da će ovaj rečnik biti od pomoći svima onima koji nastoje da razumeju izbore u vodećoj zemlji današnjice, i to ne samo ove iz 2012. godine, nego i sve one koje će uslediti u godinama koje dolaze. U Beogradu, o Svetom Luki 2012. godine.

prof. dr Dragan R. Simić asist. mr Dragan Živojinović

Rečnik američkih izbora

243

Aktuelni predsednik (Incumbent) Aktuelni predsednik je osoba koja se trenutno nalazi na toj funkciji. Kroz istoriju, aktuelni predsednici su imali veće izglede za reizbor. Anketa/Anketiranje (Poll/Polling) Ispitivanje javnog mnjenja se vrši kada firma, koja se bavi anketiranjem, stupi u kontakt sa nasumično izabranom grupom građana koji predstavljaju reprezentativni uzorak, da bi im postavila niz tipskih pitanja. Kada se anketa pravilno sprovede, njeni rezultati odražavaju raspon stavova i procenat građana koji zastupaju takve stavove, i to na način koji oslikava te odnose na nivou celokupne populacije. Ispitivanja javnog mnjenja pružaju sliku o tome šta mnogi Amerikanci misle o različitim kandidatima i društvenim temama. Videti takođe odrednicu Tematsko ispitivanje javnog mnjenja. Bakli protiv Valea (Buckley v. Valeo) Pravni spor Bakli protiv Valea završen je 1976. značajnom odlukom Vrhovnog suda Sjedinjenih Američkih Država o pravnoj regulativi vezanoj za finansiranja kampanje, koja je poduprla Savezni zakon o izbornim kampanjama i obaveze obelodanjivanja detalja finansiranja kampanje ograničenja doprinosa, kao i odredbe za javno finansiranje predsedničkih izbornih kampanja. Sud je odbacio zakonska ograničenja o trošenju, osim ograničenja koja su predsednički kandidati koji primaju javna sredstva dobrovoljno prihvatili. Time su kandidatima za Kongres omogućena neograničena trošenja (jer oni ne primaju javna sredstva), kao i osobama ili grupama koje vode kampanju za ili protiv kandidata, ali koji ne koordiniraju svoje aktivnosti sa drugim kandidatom ili kampanjom. Sudska odluka takođe kaže da kandidati koji ne

244

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

primaju javni novac ne moraju da ograniče troškove kampanje iz svojih privatnih fondova. Videti takođe odrednicu Mekejn-Fajngold (McCain-Feingold). Biračka inicijativa (Ballot initiative) Biračke inicijative su primer neposredne demokratije u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, putem kojih građani mogu da predlože zakon ili amandmane na ustave saveznih država. Neke inicijative predlažu ukidanje postojećih državnih zakona. Države se razlikuju po broju neophodnih potpisa, koji se zahteva kako bi se inicijativa stavila na glasanje. Ove inicijative (u nekim državama poznate kao „birački predlozi“) često su, ne u svim slučajevima, predmet odobravanja proste većine. Videti takođe odrednicu Referendum (Referendum). Birački predlog (Proposition) Videti odrednice Građanska inicijativa i Referendum. Biračko telo (Constituency) Pojedinci koje zastupa državni zvaničnik sačinjavaju njegovo biračko telo. Ponekad se ovaj pojam koristi da označi samo one koji su glasali u korist izabranog zvaničnika. Izborno telo predsednika čine svi Amerikanci; izborno telo gradonačelnika obuhvata ljude koji imaju prebivalište u tom gradu. Blog (Blog) Blog je skraćenica za Weblog, i to je onlajn dnevnik. Kandidati koriste blog kako bi javnost upoznali sa svojim aktivnostima. Ostali koriste blog kako bi pratili kampanju ili druge događaje. Političke blogove stvaraju „blogeri“, pojedinci koji postavljaju komentare ili tumače vesti iz svoje perspektive. Politički

Rečnik američkih izbora

245

blogovi, kao i svi ostali, predstavljaju široki spektar mišljenja. Blokada (Gridlock) Termin blokada u politici označava situaciju u kojoj jedna politička stranka ili struja stvara prepreke koje blokiraju ili ozbiljno remete postizanje kompromisa o zakonodavnim ili političkim pitanjima. Crvena država (Red State) Termin označava saveznu američku državu u kojoj većina glasača obično podržava republikanske kandidate i ciljeve. Videti takođe odrednicu Plava država. Debata (Debate) Debata je jasno uređena rasprava koja uključuje dve ili više suprotstavljenih strana. U američkoj politici debate su vremenom postale sinonim za televizijski program tokom kojeg kandidati izlažu lične stavove ili stavove svojih partija odgovarajući na pitanja predstavnika medija ili članova publike. Debate se mogu odvijati i preko radija, Interneta ili na neposrednim okupljanjima pripadnika lokalne zajednice. U debati mogu da učestvuju svi kandidati za funkcije na svim nivoima vlasti. Elektorski kolegijum (Electoral College) Predsednik i potpredsednik biraju se primenom sistema elektorskih kolegijuma koji predviđa da svakoj pojedinačnoj državi pripada onoliko elektorskih glasova koliki je broj njenih predstavnika u oba doma Kongresa. Distriktu Kolumbija pripadaju tri elektorska glasa. Kandidat mora da osvoji 270 od ukupno 538 raspoloživih glasova da bi pobedio na izborima. Finansiranje iz javnih izvora (Public Funding) Videti odrednicu Ujednačeno finansiranje.

246

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Glasanje u odsustvu (Absentee voting) Glasanje u odsustvu omogućava glasačima koji nisu u mogućnosti da stignu na biračka mesta, da glasaju. Različite okolnosti, kao što su: boravak u inostranstvu, bolest, putovanje ili vojna služba, mogu da spreče glasače da izađu na biralište na dan izbora. Glasački listići za odsutne omogućavaju registrovanim glasačima da glasaju poštom. Glasanje u odsustvu na predsedničkim izborima uređeno je federalnim zakonom. Za sve ostale izbore, pravila za glasanje u odsustvu određuju se i razlikuju od države do države. U saveznoj državi Oregon svi izbori se sprovode poštom, ali glasači imaju i mogućnost da lično glasaju na biračkom mestu. Grupa građana protiv Savezne izborne komisije (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) Ovom odlukom Vrhovnog suda, donetom 2010. godine, davaoci priloga i druge grupe ljudi uživaju ista prava koja bi imali da deluju kao pojedinci. Sud je takođe odlučio da Vlada ne može da uvede ograničenja na iznose koje ove grupe mogu da potroše na pružanje podrške ili kritikovanje političkih kandidata. Videti takođe odrednicu Super PAK. Hečov zakon (Hatch Act) Hečov zakon propisuje ograničenja koja se odnose na političko delovanje zaposlenih u izvršnoj vlasti na saveznom nivou i u upravi Distrikta Kolumbije, kao i na političko delovanje državnih i lokalnih službenika koji rade na programima koji se finansiraju iz saveznog budžeta. Prema tom zakonu, zaposlenima je dopušteno da se angažuju u predizbornim kampanjama, ali zabranjeno im je da koriste svoja službena ovlašćenja s ciljem da utiču na rezultate izbora, i to bilo da traže ili prihvataju političku podršku i uče-

Rečnik američkih izbora

247

stvuju u političkom delovanju dok su na dužnosti ili da ističu i nose predizborni reklamni materijal. Zaposleni na koje se odnosi Hečov zakon mogu da istaknu svoju kandidaturu na nestranačkim izborima, na primer, na izborima za funkcije u školskim odborima, ali zabranjeno im je da se kandiduju na stranačkim izborima. Hroma patka (Lame duck) Izraz „hroma patka“ označava izabranog zvaničnika u periodu od izbora naslednika koji će ga smeniti na toj funkciji do naslednikovog stupanja na dužnost. U političkom smislu, takav pojedinac se nalazi u oslabljenoj poziciji zbog predstojećeg isteka mandata. Izazivač (Challenger) Izazivač je kandidat koji učestvuje u izbornoj trci za političku funkciju, nadmećući se sa osobom koja trenutno obavlja tu funkciju. Videti takođe odrednicu Aktuelni funkcioner. Izborni program (Platform) Izborni program označava zvaničan pisani proglas jedne političke stranke o njenim političkim principima i ciljevima, uobličen i objavljen tokom izbora za predsedničkog kandidata stranke, a potvrđen na nacionalnoj konvenciji. U manje formalnom značenju, može označavati i poziciju kandidata prema određenom nizu političkih pitanja. Jedan okrug – jedan predstavnik (Single-member district) Izraz „jedan okrug – jedan predstavnik“ opisuje važeći princip za izbor nacionalnih i državnih predstavnika zakonodavne vlasti u SAD prema kojem svaki zakonodavni okrug bira po jednog kandidata, a pobednik je kandidat koji dobije najviše glasova. Sistem „jedan

248

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

okrug – jedan predstavnik“ omogućava da u svakom okrugu pobedi samo po jedna stranka. U proporcionalnom sistemu, koji je popularan u Evropi, koriste se mnogo veće izborne jedinice te po nekoliko predstavnika bude izabrano istovremeno, u zavisnosti od procenta glasova koji su ostvarile njihove stranke. Kandidat (Nominee) Kandidat je osoba koju su drugi članovi stranke izabrali da se na izborima nadmeće za određenu funkciju. Kandidati mogu da se biraju na preliminarnim stranačkim izborima ili na kokusima. Kada samo jedan kandidat u stranci istakne svoju kandidaturu za određenu političku funkciju, direktno postaje kandidat te stranke bez daljeg postupka selekcije. Kandidat-favorit (Front-runner) Kandidat-favorit je onaj koji na svim izborima, i u svim fazama isticanja kandidature, slovi za najpopularnijeg kandidata, odnosno kandidata sa najvećim izgledima za pobedu. Kokus (Caucus) Kokus predstavlja sastanak na lokalnom nivou, na kojem se registrovani članovi političke partije, na gradskom ili okružnom nivou, sastaju da bi izrazili podršku kandidatima. Kada su u pitanju funkcije na nivou država ili federacije, ovi izrazi podrške se kombinuju i tako se određuje kandidat partije na nivou te države. Ovaj pojam označava i grupu izabranih zvaničnika koji imaju zajedničke ciljeve, i sastaju se u cilju planiranja politike koja treba da ostvari zajedničku političku agendu. Dva poznata primera ovakvih grupa su kongresni crni i kongresni hispanski kokus u Kongresu SAD; članovi ovih kokusa raspravljaju i ostvaruju interese svog biračkog tela.

Rečnik američkih izbora

249

Komisija za podršku izborima (Election Assistance Commission) Komisija za podršku izborima je obrazovana zakonom Pomozimo Americi da glasa iz 2002. godine i funkcioniše prevashodno kao nacionalna služba za pružanje podrške i informisanje o izborima. Komisija ujedno analizira rad savezne izborne administracije i daje mišljenje o izbornim procedurama. Komitet za političko delovanje (Political Action Committee – PAC) Komiteti za političko delovanje su politički komiteti koji nisu direktno povezani sa određenom političkom strankom, već sa korporacijama, radničkim sindikatima i drugim organizacijama. Komiteti prikupljaju novac za kandidate i učestvuju u drugim izbornim aktivnostima, a sve u cilju podrške konkretnim zakonskim rešenjima. Novčana sredstva se prikupljaju kroz dobrovoljne priloge članova, zaposlenih i akcionara. Uticaj i broj komiteta se značajno uvećao poslednjih godina: 1976. godine bilo je 608 komiteta, a 2010. oko 5.400. Konvencija (Convention) U godini održavanja predsedničkih izbora, pošto su završeni preliminarni izbori i održani sastanci kokusa, partije se sastaju da bi odabrale kandidata za funkciju predsednika – obično je u pitanju kandidat koji je obezbedio podršku većine delegata na konvenciji, a na osnovu ostvarenih pobeda u preliminarnim izborima. Kandidat za predsednika obično sam bira partnera u kampanji koji će biti kandidat za potpredsednika, ali izbor za potpredsednika može i da prepusti delegatima na konvenciji, bez preporuke za određenog kandidata.

250

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Mekejn-Fajngold (McCain-Feingold) Mekejnov i Fajngoldov zakon, ranije poznat pod nazivom Zakon o reformi predizborne kampanje usvojen na predlog obe stranke, dobio je ime po dvojici predlagača, Džonu Mekejnu, republikancu iz Arizone, i Raselu Fajngoldu, demokrati iz Viskonsina, koji su u Senatu zatražili da se ukine „meki novac“ kao sredstvo uticaja na kandidate koji se kandiduju za funkcije na saveznom nivou. Zakon je otklonio „rupe“ u zakonu koje su ranije dopuštale upotrebu „mekog novca“ kao vid pomoći kandidatima koji učestvuju u izbornoj trci za funkcije na saveznom nivou. Videti takođe odrednicu Tvrdi novac/meki novac. Meki novac (Soft money) Videti odrednicu Tvrdi novac/meki novac. Negativna kampanja (Negative ads) Ove propagandne poruke nastoje da ubede glasače da se opredele za određenog kandidata tako što protivkandidata prikazuju u lošem svetlu, dovodeći u pitanje njegovu/njenu ličnost ili njegove/njene ranije stavove i postupke u vezi sa nekim konkretnim pitanjem. Neopredeljeni glasači (Swing voters) Ishod izbora ponekad mogu da odluče glasači koji nisu privrženi nijednoj političkoj stranci budući da njihovi glasovi mogu da donesu „prevagu“ jednoj ili drugoj strani, u zavisnosti od konkretne društvene teme ili kandidata. Neopredeljeni glasači često menjaju svoj izbor na narednim izborima. Nezavisni kandidat/birač (Independent) Nezavisni kandidat ili birač je onaj koji nije povezan ni sa jednom političkom strankom.

Rečnik američkih izbora

251

Nezvanično anketiranje/izjašnjavanje (Straw poll/ vote) Ovaj izraz označava nezvanično glasanje koje se koristi u cilju predviđanja ishoda nekog zvaničnog glasanja ili pak da bi se izmerila relativna snaga kandidata za potrebe nekih budućih izbora. Dobri rezultati u nezvaničnim anketama mogu da podignu popularnost kandidatu, ali ne i nužno da predvide njegovu/ njenu uspešnost na duži rok. Ograničenost trajanja mandata (Term limits) Ograničenost trajanja mandata podrazumeva da postoji ograničenje u broju godina koje funkcioner ili zakonodavac može da provede na toj dužnosti. Predsednik SAD na toj funkciji ne može provesti više od dva uzastopna mandata, odnosno osam godina. Za članove Senata i Predstavničkog doma ne postoji ograničenje. Neke državne i lokalne funkcije podležu ograničenju trajanja mandata. Otvoreni preliminarni stranački izbori (Open primary) Glasanje u kojem mogu da učestvuju svi registrovani glasači, bez obzira na to da li su registrovani kao demokrate, republikanci ili nezavisni. Videti takođe odrednicu Preliminarni stranački izbori. Peševi kaputa (Coattails) Izraz „peševi kaputa“ predstavlja aluziju na zadnji deo (tj. peš) muškog kaputa. U američkoj politici, ovaj izraz se odnosi na sposobnost zvaničnika ili kandidata koji uživa veliku popularnost, da poveća izglede za pobedu drugih kandidata, koji potiču iz iste partije. Za ovog kandidata/kandidatkinju kaže se da ostale kandidate vodi do pobede „na peševima svog kaputa“.

252

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Plava država (Blue state) „Plava država“ je termin koji se koristi da označi federalnu jedinicu Sjedinjenih Američkih Država u kojoj većina glasača obično podržava kandidate Demokratske stranke. Videti takođe odrednicu Crvena država (Red state). Podela glasa (Ticket splitting) „Podela glasa“ je izraz koji označava glasanje za kandidate različitih političkih stranaka na istim izborima, na primer, kada birač glasa za demokratskog kanditata za predsednika, a za republikanskog kandidata za senatora. Pošto ovakvi glasači podržavaju kandidate iz više od jedne političke stranke, kaže se da oni „dele“ svoj glas. Podeljena vlast (Divided government) Podeljena vlast je naziv za situaciju u kojoj predsednik SAD dolazi iz jedne političke partije, dok, s druge strane, bar jednim domom Kongresa (Senatom ili Predstavničkim domom) upravlja druga politička partija. Ovakva situacija može da postoji i na nivou pojedinačnih država, pri čemu jedna partija daje guvernera, a druga upravlja zakonodavnim telom države. Podeljena vlast je česta pojava u američkom političkom sistemu. Pomozimo Americi da glasa (Help America Vote Act – HAVA) Kongres je usvojio zakon Pomozimo Americi da glasa, s ciljem da reši probleme do kojih je došlo prilikom glasanja na predsedničkim izborima 2000. godine. Zakon podstiče vlasti na državnom i lokalnom nivou da iz upotrebe izbace glasanje pomoću perforiranih kartica i mašina sa polugom. Na osnovu ovog zakona, države su od 2003. naovamo dobile 2,9 milijardi

Rečnik američkih izbora

253

dolara u cilju unapređenja izbornog procesa. Takođe, ovim zakonom je obrazovana Komisija za podršku izborima koja je zadužena za pružanje podrške u sprovođenju saveznih izbora i prilikom primene izbornih zakona i programa. Praćenje istraživanja javnog mnjenja (Tracking survey) Vid ispitivanja javnog mnjenja koji omogućava kandidatima da prate raspoloženje birača tokom kampanje. Na početku istraživanja anketar ispituje isti broj glasača tri uzastopne večeri, na primer, po 400 glasača svake večeri, što ukupno čini 1.200 ispitanih glasača. Četvrte večeri, anketar ispituje dodatnih 400 glasača i njihove odgovore dodaje u bazu prikupljenih podataka, a izostavlja odgovore od prve večeri. Ako se nastavi sa tom praksom, uzorak čini stalnih 1.200 odgovora dobijenih u prethodne tri večeri. Posle nekog vremena, predstavnici kampanje mogu da izvrše analizu podataka prikupljenih tokom celokupnog istraživanja i da prouče uticaj određenih dešavanja na stavove birača. Videti takođe odrednicu Anketa/Anketiranje. Prekrajanje izbornih jedinica (Redistricting) Prekrajanje izbornih jedinica predstavlja proces ponovnog iscrtavanja geografskih granica između kongresnih okruga, odnosno izbornih okruga unutar država iz kojih se biraju članovi Predstavničkog doma. Na nivou država, demokrate i republikanci se nadmeću kako bi došli do zakonskih i političkih mehanizama za prekrajanje okruga, što najčešće čine uspostavljanjem kontrole nad zakonodavstvom država. Oni su tako u mogućnosti da izmene granice kongresnih okruga i to na način koji će njihovim strankama obezbediti prednost u biračkom telu.

254

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Preliminarni stranački izbori (Primary) Preliminarni stranački izbori su izbori na nivou pojedinačnih država na kojima glasači biraju kandidata iz redova jedne političke stranke koji kasnije, na opštim izborima, treba da odmeri snage sa kandidatom iz druge stranke. Preliminarni stranački izbori mogu biti „otvoreni”, što znači da svaki registrovani glasač na teritoriji jedne države može da glasa za kandidata koji će predstavljati tu političku stranku, ili pak „zatvoreni” – što znači da pravo glasa za kandidata određene stranke imaju samo registrovani glasači te stranke. Videti takođe odrednice Zatvoreni preliminarni stranački izbori i Otvoreni preliminarni stranački izbori. Protestno glasanje (Protest Vote) Glasanje za kandidata koji predstavlja treću opciju, ne zarad njega samog, već da bi se iskazalo nezadovoljstvo kandidatima iz redova dveju glavnih političkih stranaka. Rana promocija (Front-loading) Rana promocija označava praksu zakazivanja partijskih kokusa i preliminarnih stranačkih izbora na nivou pojedinačnih država već početkom kalendarske godine, znatno pre opštih izbora. Zakazujući svoje preliminarne stranačke izbore za raniji datum, država nastoji da pruži odlučujući podstrek svom stranačkom favoritu za predsedničkog kandidata, te da na taj način ostvari što veći uticaj na konačan izbor kandidata na nivou cele stranke. „Rast podrške“ posle konvencije (Convention Bounce) To je rast popularnosti predsedničkog kandidata (na osnovu istraživanja javnog mnjenja) u danima neposredno nakon njegove/njene nominacije na funkciju predsednika na nacionalnoj konvenciji.

Rečnik američkih izbora

255

Referendum (Referendum) Referendum je mehanizam pomoću kojeg zakonodavna vlast jedne države stavlja određeni zakon na neposredno glasanje građanima koji odlučuju da li će taj zakon biti usvojen ili odbačen. Termini referendum, birački predlog i građanska inicijativa često se koriste kao sinonimi. Relativna većina (Plurality) Metod relativne većine glasova služi za određivanje pobednika na izborima. Relativna većina glasova je ostvarena u slučaju kada jedan kandidat dobije veći broj glasova od svojih protivkandidata, pri čemu taj broj ne mora da predstavlja apsolutnu većinu u odnosu na ukupan broj glasova. Na primer, ako jedan kandidat dobije 30 posto glasova, drugi isto toliko, a treći 40 posto, u tom slučaju, treći kandidat može da osvoji izbore relativnom većinom glasova. Savezna izborna komisija (Federal Election Commission – FEC) Ovo nezavisno regulatorno telo je zaduženo za sprovođenje zakona koji uređuje finansiranje izbornih kampanja na saveznom nivou. Komisija ima šest članova koje postavlja predsednik po dobijanju savetodavnog mišljenja i saglasnosti Senata. Savezna izborna komisija je osnovana 1974. godine, amandmanom na Zakon o kampanji za savezne izbore iz 1971. godine. Sastanak u gradskoj skupštini (Town hall meeting) Neformalano okupljanje, uglavnom lokalnog tipa, na kojem funkcioneri ili kandidati za određene funkcije odgovaraju na neposredna pitanja građana. Sistem za prikupljanje dobrovoljnih priloga od poreskih obveznika (Taxpayer check-off system) Ovaj sistem za prikupljanje dobrovoljnih priloga omo­ gućava svim poreskim obveznicima u SAD da tri

256

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

dolara od ukupnog iznosa svog godišnjeg poreza na dohodak prilože javnom Fondu za finansiranje predsedničkih izbora. Sve što treba da učine kako bi uplatili prilog jeste da na svojoj poreskoj uplatnici štikliraju kvadratić čime potvrđuju da žele da učestvuju u tom sistemu. Ovaj prilog ne uvećava i ne umanjuje iznos poreza, već se tri dolara od ukupnog iznosa plaćenog poreza ulaže u Fond za finansiranje kampanja za predsedničke izbore. Videti takođe odrednicu Ujednačeno finansiranje. Specijalni komitet za političko delovanje (Super PAC) Ova vrsta komiteta za političko delovanje može da prikuplja neograničena novčana sredstva od donatora kojima se, ako to žele, daje mogućnost da ostanu anonimni. Specijalnim komitetima je zabranjeno da uplaćuju direktne donacije pojedinačnim kampanjama, kao i da koordiniraju svoje aktivnosti sa kandidatima ili političkim strankama. Videti takođe odrednicu Grupa građana protiv Savezne izborne komisije. Spin doktor (Spin doctor) Spin doktor je savetnik za medije ili politički konsultant angažovan u kampanji s ciljem da kandidatu obezbedi najveći mogući publicitet. Kada savetnici za medije primene svoju veštinu, za njih se kaže da „spinuju“, odnosno prave „spin“ kako bi određenu situaciju ili događaj predstavili u što povoljnijem svetlu po stranu koju zastupaju. Super utorak (Super Tuesday) Rasprostranjena upotreba izraza „super utorak“ datira iz 1988. godine, kada se grupa južnih država udružila radi organizacije prvog velikog i uspešnog

Rečnik američkih izbora

257

niza preliminarnih stranačkih izbora koji su imali za cilj da ojačaju ulogu južnih država u procesu izbora predsedničkih kandidata i smanje uticaj ranog glasanja na kokusu u Ajovi i na preliminarnim stranačkim izborima u Nju Hempširu. Danas je značenje ovog izraza nejasno zbog činjenice da se u isti utorak ili nekoliko utoraka može održati i po nekoliko preliminarnih stranačkih izbora u različitim delovima države. Ovo grupisanje izbora je važno zbog masovnosti i istovremenosti glasanja koje obično određuje sudbinu potencijalnih predsedničkih kandidata, budući da se u jednom dahu izabere veliki broj delegata koji će glasati na konvenciji. Ove godine super utorak je bio 6. marta, ali kako su neke države pomerile svoje preliminarne stranačke izbore za ranije datume, ovogodišnji utorak je bio „manje super“ nego na prošlim izborima. Tematsko ispitivanje javnog mnjenja (Push Polling) Tehnika ispitivanja javnog mnjenja koja se koristi za testiranje potencijalnih tema u kampanji kroz analizu odgovora ispitanika na vrlo konkretna pitanja o nekoj društvenoj temi ili kandidatu. Videti takođe odrednicu Anketa/Ispitivanje javnog mnjenja. Treća stranka (Third party) Svaka politička stranka koja ima svoju biračku bazu i aktivno utiče na konačan ishod izbora, a ne spada u jednu od dve stranke koje dominiraju politikom Sjedinjenih Američkih Država još od kraja 19. veka. Trka konja (Horse race) Izraz „trka konja“, kao metafora za izbornu kampanju, koristi se da označi napeto takmičenje i dočara uzbuđenje koje ljudi osećaju kada prate sportsko takmičenje.

258

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Tvrdi novac/meki novac (Hard money/Soft money) Tvrdi i meki novac su termini koji se koriste da bi se napravila razlika između finansiranja kampanje koje je propisano Saveznim zakonom o finansiranju kampanja i onog koje ne podleže tom zakonu. Izraz tvrdi novac označava priloge pojedinaca i grupa koji su direktno namenjeni kandidatima koji učestvuju u izbornoj trci za funkcije na saveznom nivou. Takvi prilozi su ograničeni zakonom. Izraz meki novac se odnosi na donacije koje nisu regulisane zakonom i koje mogu da budu upotrebljene isključivo za građanske aktivnosti, kao što su inicijative za registrovanje glasača, aktivnosti u cilju jačanja stranačke infrastrukture, administrativni troškovi, kao i za pružanje podrške državnim i lokalnim kandidatima. Prilozi u mekom novcu, po zakonu, ne mogu biti upotrebljeni za pružanje direktne podrške kandidatu za saveznu funkciju. Vrhovni sud SAD je 2003. godine potvrdio odluku Kongresa iz 2002. kojom su uvedena ograničenja za priloge u mekom novcu. Videti takođe odrednicu Mekejn-Fajngold. Ubedljiva pobeda (Landslide) Pobeda u kojoj je jedan kandidat osvojio znatno više glasova u odnosu na druge kandidate. Ujednačeno finansiranje ili finansiranje iz javnih izvora (Matching funds or public funding) Predsednički kandidati mogu dobiti novac iz javnih izvora ukoliko pristanu da ograniče troškove svojih kampanja. Pojedinačni prilozi koji u ukupnom iznosu ne premašuju 250 dolara po osobi ispunjavaju uslov da, po principu dolar-za-dolar, budu osnov za potraživanje sredstava iz Fonda za finansiranje predsedničkih kampanja. Ovaj fond obuhvata prihode ostvarene od dobrovoljnih uplata u fiksnom iznosu

Rečnik američkih izbora

259

od tri dolara po osobi, koje poreski obveznici mogu da uplate zajedno sa porezom na dohodak. Videti takođe odrednicu Sistem za prikupljanje dobrovoljnih priloga od poreskih obveznika. Upečatljiva izjava (Sound bite) Upečatljiva izjava je kratka, jasna izjava predizbornog kandidata koja se lako pamti i neprestano emituje u informativnim programima na radiju i televiziji. U negativnoj kampanji često se koriste poruke istrgnute iz konteksta da bi se skrenula pažnja na nepopularne stavove koje zastupaju protivkandidati. Zakon o kampanji za savezne izbore (Federal Election Campaign Act – FECA) Zakon o kampanji za savezne izbore, donet 1971. godine uz izmene i dopune iz 1974, 1976. i 1979. godine, uređuje finansiranje izbora na saveznom nivou. Zakon propisuje da su kandidati i politički komiteti dužni da obelodane svoje izvore finansiranja i način na koji troše taj novac. Zakon uređuje pitanje sakupljenih priloga i troškova tokom kampanje za savezne izbore i propisuje pravila za finansiranje predsedničkih izbora iz javnih izvora. Zatvoreni preliminarni izbori (Closed Primary) Na preliminarnim stranačkim izborima kandidati dve najveće stranke (Demokratske i Republikanske) učestvuju u nadmetanju za partijsku nominaciju na funkciju. Na ovim izborima mogu da učestvuju samo registrovani članovi stranke koja organizuje izbore. Glasači koji nisu članovi mogu da dobiju glasačke listiće za druge mere ili nestranačka nadmetanja koja se odvijaju istog dana. Videti takođe odrednicu Preliminarni izbori.

260

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Glossary of U.S. Election Terms

261

„Glossary of U.S. Election Terms1 28 December 2011 „Absentee voting Absentee voting allows voters who cannot come to polling places to cast their ballots. A variety of circumstances, including residency abroad, illness, travel or military service, can prevent voters from coming to the polls on Election Day. Absentee ballots permit registered voters to mail in their votes. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, a federal law, governs absentee voting in presidential elections. Absentee voting rules for all other elections are set by the states, and vary. In Oregon, all elections are conducted by mail, but voters have the option of voting in person at county polling stations. Ballot initiative Ballot initiatives are an example of direct democracy in the United States, in which citizens may propose legislative measures or amendments to state constitutions. Some initiatives propose the repeal of existing state laws. States vary in the number of signatures they require to place an initiative on the ballot. These initiatives (also called “propositions” in some states) are subject to approval by a simple majority in most, but not all, cases. See also Referendum. Blog Short for weblog, a blog is an online journal. Candidates use blogs to tell visitors to their websites 1

Source: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/1 2/20111228115119tegdirb2.994281e-02.html#axzz4OYcXFVnE (accessed 05. 05. 2012.)

262

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

about their activities. Others use blogs to follow the development of campaign issues or events. Political blogs are created by “bloggers,” individuals who post commentary and news from their own perspective. Political blogs, like blogs in general, reflect a broad spectrum of opinion. Blue state Blue state is a term used to refer to a U.S. state where the majority of voters usually support Democratic candidates and causes. See also Red state. Buckley v. Valeo The legal challenge Buckley v. Valeo resulted in a landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision on campaign finance law that upheld the Federal Election Campaign Act’s financial disclosure requirements, contribution limits and provision for public funding of presidential election campaigns. The court struck down spending limits in the law, except for the limits accepted voluntarily by presidential candidates who receive public funds. Thus, the ruling allowed for unlimited spending by congressional candidates (they do not receive public funds) and by persons or groups who campaign for or against a candidate, but who do not coordinate their activities with any candidate or campaign. The ruling also said that candidates who do not receive public money do not have to limit campaign spending of their own personal funds. See also McCain-Feingold. Caucus A caucus is a meeting at the local level in which registered members of a political party in a city, town or county gather to express support for candidates. For statewide or national offices, those recommendati-

Glossary of U.S. Election Terms

263

ons are combined to determine the state party nominee. The term also is used to describe a group of elected officials with a common goal that meets to plan policy in support of a shared political agenda. Two well-known examples of such groups are the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, whose members discuss and advance the interests of their respective constituencies. Challenger A challenger is a candidate who runs for political office against a person who currently holds that office (the incumbent). See also Incumbent. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission This 2010 Supreme Court decision affirmed shareholders and other groups of people enjoy the same rights that they would have if they were acting as individuals. The court also ruled that the government cannot restrict how much such groups can spend to support or criticize political candidates. See also Super PAC. Closed Primary Candidates from the two major political parties (Democratic and Republican) compete to be their parties’ nominee for an office in a primary election. Closed primaries are restricted to voters registered as a member of the party holding the election. Unaffiliated voters receive ballots for other measures and nonpartisan contests that occur on the same date. See also Primary. Coattails The expression “coattails” is an allusion to the rear panels (or “tails”) of a man’s coat. In American poli-

264

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

tics, it refers to the ability of a popular officeholder or candidate for office, on the strength of his or her own popularity, to increase the chances for victory of other candidates of the same political party. This candidate is said to carry others to victory on his or her coattails. Convention In presidential election years, after state primaries and caucuses have concluded, the political parties gather to select a presidential nominee — usually the candidate who secured the support of the most convention delegates, based on victories in primary elections. The presidential nominee usually chooses a running mate to be the candidate for vice president, but the presidential nominee can throw open the vice presidential selection process to the convention delegates without making a recommendation. Convention bounce An increase in a presidential candidate’s popularity, as indicated by public-opinion polls, in the days immediately following his or her nomination for office at a national convention. Constituency The people a government official represents make up his or her constituency. The term sometimes is used to refer only to those individuals who voted to elect the official. The president’s constituency comprises all Americans; a mayor’s constituency comprises the people who reside in the town or city. Debate A structured discussion involving two or more opposing sides is a debate. In American politics, debates

Glossary of U.S. Election Terms

265

have come to be associated with televised programs at which candidates present their own and their parties’ views in response to questions from the media or members of the audience. Debates also may be held via radio, the Internet or at a community meeting place. They can be held among those who seek elective office at any level of government. Divided government A situation in which the U.S. president is a member of one political party and at least one chamber of Congress (either the Senate or the House of Representatives) is controlled by another party is called a divided government. This situation also can exist at the state level, with one party controlling the governorship and another controlling the state legislature. Divided government occurs frequently in the U.S. political system. Election Assistance Commission Established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the Election Assistance Commission serves primarily as a national clearinghouse and resource for information on elections. It also reviews federal election administration and procedures. Electoral College The president and vice president are selected through the electoral college system, which gives each state the same number of electoral votes as it has members of Congress. The District of Columbia gets three electoral votes. Of the total 538 votes available, a candidate must receive 270 to win. Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) A 1971 law that governs the financing of federal elections, the Federal Election Campaign Act was

266

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

amended in 1974, 1976 and 1979. The act requires candidates and political committees to disclose the sources of their funding and how they spend their money; it regulates the contributions received and expenditures made during federal election campaigns; and it governs the public funding of presidential elections. Federal Election Commission (FEC) This independent regulatory agency is charged with administering and enforcing federal campaign finance law. The FEC consists of six commissioners appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. The FEC was established by the 1974 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Front-loading The practice of scheduling state party caucuses and state primary elections early in the calendar year, well in advance of the general election, is called front-loading. By moving its primary to an early date, a state hopes to lend decisive momentum to its preferred presidential candidate and thus have disproportionate influence on a party’s nomination. Front-runner A candidate in any election or nomination process who is considered most popular or most likely to win is called the front-runner. Gridlock In politics, when a political party or faction creates obstacles that block or severely hinder compromise on legislation or policy issues, the situation is described as gridlock.

Glossary of U.S. Election Terms

267

Hard money/Soft money Hard money and soft money are terms used to differentiate between campaign funding that is, and is not, regulated under federal campaign finance law. Hard money describes donations by individuals and groups made directly to political candidates running for federal office. Such contributions are restricted by law. Soft money refers to donations not regulated by law that can be spent only on civic activities such as voter-registration drives, party-building activities, administrative costs and in support of state and local candidates. “Soft money” contributions, by law, may not be used to directly support a candidate for federal office. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 upheld congressional restrictions passed in 2002 on soft money contributions. See also McCain-Feingold. Hatch Act The Hatch Act places restrictions on political activity by employees of the executive branch of the U.S. federal government, District of Columbia government, and state and local employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. Under the act, employees are permitted to contribute to a candidate’s campaign, but are restricted from using official authority to influence an election, including soliciting or receiving political contributions and engaging in political activity — including wearing or displaying political promotional materials — while on duty. Employees covered by the Hatch Act may run for office in a nonpartisan election, such as many school board elections, but are prohibited from running in a partisan election. Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Congress passed HAVA to address voting problems encountered in the 2000 presidential election. The

268

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

act encourages state and local governments to eliminate punch-card and lever voting machines. Under HAVA, states have received $2.9 billion since 2003 to improve their election processes. The law also established the Election Assistance Commission to provide support to the administration of federal elections, as well as election laws and programs. Horse race Used as a metaphor for an election campaign, “horse race” is used to describe a close contest and conveys the feeling of excitement that people experience when watching a sporting event. Incumbent An individual currently holding a position is the incumbent. Historically, incumbents have enjoyed a better-than-average chance of being re-elected. Independent A candidate or voter not affiliated with a particular political party is termed an independent. Lame duck The term lame duck refers to an elected official during the time period between the election that chose the official’s successor and the date the successor assumes office. Such an individual is in a weakened position politically due to the impending expiration of his or her term. Landslide A victory in which one candidate’s votes far surpass those of other candidates is called a landslide. Matching funds or public funding Public money can be given to presidential candidates who agree to limit their spending on the campaign.

Glossary of U.S. Election Terms

269

Contributions from individuals in which the aggregate amount contributed by the individual is $250 or less are eligible to be matched on a dollar- for-dollar basis from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This fund includes proceeds from the voluntary check-off of $3 per person from income tax returns of eligible taxpayers. See also Taxpayer check-off system. McCain-Feingold Formally titled the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the McCain-Feingold law is named after its two chief Senate sponsors, John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, and Russell Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, who sought to remove “soft money” as an influence on candidates running for federal office. The law eliminated “loopholes” (or legislative oversights) that in the past allowed the use of soft money to aid candidates running for federal office. See also Hard money/Soft money. Negative ads These advertisements try to persuade voters to choose a candidate by making the opposing candidate look bad, by attacking either the opponent’s character or record on the issues. Nominee A person selected by others to run for office is the nominee. Nominees may be selected in primary elections or caucuses. When only one candidate from a party has filed to run for a political office, that candidate becomes the party’s nominee without any further selection process. Open primary An open primary is one in which all registered voters may vote, regardless of whether they are registered as Democrats, Republicans or Independents. See also Primary.

270

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Platform Platform refers to a political party’s formal written statement of its principles and goals, put together and issued during the presidential nomination process and affirmed during the party’s national political convention. Less formally, it can also refer to a candidate’s position on a set of political issues. Plurality A plurality is one method of identifying the winning candidate in an election. A plurality occurs when the votes received by a candidate are greater than those received by any opponent but can be less than a majority of the total vote. For example, if one candidate receives 30 percent of the votes, a second candidate also receives 30 percent and a third receives 40 percent, the third candidate could win the election by a plurality of the votes. Political Action Committee (PAC) PACs are political committees not related directly to a political party, but rather affiliated with corporations, labor unions or other organizations. The committees contribute money to candidates and engage in other election-related activities so as to promote specific legislative agendas. Funds are gathered by voluntary contributions from members, employees or shareholders. PACs have increased significantly in influence and number in recent years: In 1976, there were 608 PACs; in 2010, there were about 5,400. Poll/Polling A public opinion poll is created when a polling firm contacts a sample group of randomly selected citizens and asks a series of standard questions. If executed properly, the poll’s data reflect the range of opinions

Glossary of U.S. Election Terms

271

and the portion of the population that holds them in a manner representative of the full population. Public opinion polls provide an idea of what many Americans think about various candidates and issues. See also Push polling. Primary A state-level election in which voters choose a candidate affiliated with a political party to run against a candidate who is affiliated with another political party in a later, general election. A primary may be either “open” — allowing any registered voter in a state to vote for a candidate to represent a political party, or “closed” — allowing only registered voters who belong to a particular political party to vote for a candidate from that party. See also Closed primary and Open primary. Proposition See Ballot initiative and Referendum. Protest vote A vote for a third-party candidate made, not to elect that candidate, but to indicate displeasure with the candidates of the two major political parties. Public funding See Matching funds. Push polling A public-opinion polling technique that is used to test possible campaign themes by asking very specific questions about an issue or a candidate is call push polling. See also Poll/Polling. Redistricting The process of redrawing the geographic boundaries of congressional districts, the electoral dis-

272

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

tricts within states from which members of the House of Representatives are elected, is called redistricting. Democrats and Republicans at the state level compete to get hold of the legal and political mechanisms of redistricting — usually by controlling the state legislature. By doing so, they can redraw boundaries of congressional districts in ways that will lend an electoral advantage to their own party. Red state Red state refers to a U.S. state where the majority of voters usually support Republican candidates and causes. See also Blue state. Referendum A measure referred to voters by a state legislature proposing that specific legislation be approved or rejected is a referendum. The terms referendum, proposition and ballot initiative frequently are used interchangeably. Single-member district Single-member district describes the current arrangement for electing national and state legislators in the United States in which one candidate is elected in each legislative district; the winner is the candidate with the most votes. The “single-member” system allows only one party to win in any given district. Under the proportional system popular in Europe, much larger districts are used and several members are elected at one time, based on the proportion of votes their parties receive. Soft money See Hard money/Soft money.

Glossary of U.S. Election Terms

273

Sound bite A sound bite is a brief, very quotable remark by a candidate for office that is repeated on radio and television news programs. Negative ads frequently use sound bites to highlight an unpopular stance taken by an opposing candidate. Spin doctor A media adviser or political consultant employed by a campaign to ensure that a candidate receives the best possible publicity in any given situation is called a spin doctor. When these media advisers practice their craft, they are said to be “spinning” or putting “spin” on a situation or event to present it as favorably as possible for their side. Straw poll/vote An unofficial vote that is used either to predict the outcome of an official vote or to measure the relative strength of candidates for office in a future election is called a straw poll or straw vote. A good showing in a straw vote can give a candidate a boost, but does not necessarily predict later success. Swing voters Voters not loyal to a particular political party sometimes can determine the outcome of an election by “swinging” one way or the other on an issue or candidate. Swing voters often reverse their choices in a subsequent election. Super PAC This type of political action committee (PAC) is allowed to raise an unlimited amount of money from donors who can choose to remain anonymous. Super PACs are not allowed to donate directly to individual campaigns

274

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

or coordinate with candidates or political parties. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Super Tuesday Widespread use of the phrase “Super Tuesday” dates from 1988, when a group of Southern states banded together to hold the first large and effective regional group of primaries in order to boost the importance of Southern states in the presidential nomination process and lessen the impact of early votes in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Today, the meaning of the phrase is blurred, a reflection of the fact that, during the presidential primary season, there may be several groups of state primaries in various regions falling on one or more Tuesdays. These groupings are important because the weight of such a large, simultaneous vote tends to make or break would-be presidential nominees because so many convention delegates are selected at once. In 2012, Super Tuesday is March 6 but, because some states have moved their primaries to earlier dates, it will be less “super” than in past elections. Taxpayer check-off system The taxpayer check-off system allows U.S. taxpayers to contribute $3 of their annual federal income tax payment to a public fund for financing presidential elections. To contribute, taxpayers simply check a box on their tax return that says that they want to participate in this system. Making the contribution does not raise or lower an individual’s taxes; it simply deposits $3 of the tax payment into the presidential election campaign fund. See also Matching funds. Term limits Term limits involve restricting the number of years an officeholder or lawmaker may serve in a particular office. There is a term limit for the U.S. president, who may

Glossary of U.S. Election Terms

275

serve no more than two consecutive terms, or eight years total. There are no term limits for those who serve in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. Some state and local offices are subject to terms limits. Third party Any political party that is not one of the two parties that have dominated U.S. politics since the late 19th century — the Republican Party and the Democratic Party — and that receives a base of support and plays a role in influencing the outcome of an election is referred to as a third party. Ticket splitting Voting for candidates of different political parties in the same election, for instance by voting for a Democrat for president and a Republican for senator, is called splitting the ticket. Because these voters support candidates from more than one political party, they are said to “split” their votes. Town hall meeting A town hall meeting is an informal gathering of an officeholder or candidate for office with a group of people, often local, in which the audience directly questions the officeholder or candidate. Tracking survey A type of public-opinion poll that allows candidates to follow or “track” voters’ sentiments over the course of a campaign is called a tracking survey. For the initial survey, the pollster interviews the same number of voters on three consecutive nights — for example, 400 voters a night for a total sample of 1,200 people. On the fourth night, the pollster interviews 400 more voters, adds their responses to the

276

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

poll data, and drops the responses from the first night. Continuing in this way, the sample rolls along at a constant 1,200 responses drawn from the previous three nights. Over time, the campaign can analyze the data from the entire survey and observe the effect of certain events on voters’ attitudes. See also Poll/Polling.“2

Source: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/12/201 11228115119tegdirb2.994281e-02.html#axzz2AivtSg4o (pristupljeno 05. 05. 2012.)

2

Biografije urednika pojmovnika

277

BIOGRAFIJE UREDNIKA POJMOVNIKA Dr Dragan R. Simić (1961, Medveđa), Srbija, je redovni profesor i dekan Univerziteta u Beogradu – Fakulteta političkih nauka. Predaje međunarodne odnose, nacionalnu i globalnu bezbednost, velike strategije i strateško mišljenje, geopolitiku, spoljnu i bezbednosnu politiku SAD i srpsko – američke odnose na matičnom i fakultetima u regionu i u inostranstvu (Bosna i Hercegovina (Republika Srpska), Crna Gora, Italija, Grčka, SAD...). Predaje, takođe, na Diplomatskoj akademiji „Koča Popović“ Ministarstva spoljnih poslova Republike Srbije, na Vojnoj akademiji i najvišim vojnim školama u Srbiji. Profesor Dragan R. Simić je 2014. godine izabran za profesora Univerziteta Klemson, Južna Karolina, SAD, na osnovu sporazuma o saradnji Univerziteta u Beogradu – Fakulteta političkih nauka (Centra za studije SAD) i Univerziteta Klemson. Kao urednik izdavačke delatnosti u IIC SSO Srbije (1986 – 1990), uredio je preko 60 monografija, potom kao glavni i odgovorni urednik časopisa Ideje, Velike i Male edicije Ideja uredio je Izabrana dela Vilhelma Rajha u pet tomova. Objavio je sledeće knjige: Pozitivan mir (1993), Poredak sveta (1999), Nauka o bezbednosti (2002), Svetska politika (2009), Rasprava o poretku, drugo izdanje (2012); sa engleskog je preveo studije Džozefa Naja, Kako razumevati međunarodne sukobe (2006), Džona Miršajmera, Tragedija politike velikih sila (2009) (zajedno sa mr Draganom Živojinovićem i dr Miljanom Filimonovićem); i Roberta Šulcingera, Američka diplomatija od 1900. godine (2011) (zajedno sa Draganom Živojinovićem). Takođe, uredio je pet knjiga: Integracija Zapadnog Balkana u mrežu globalne bezbednosti (2011); Meka moć država (2013.) (za-

278

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

jedno sa mr Draganom Živojinovićem i Nikolom Kosovićem); Politika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država prema regionu Zapadnog Balkana i Republici Srbiji (2015) (zajedno sa mr Draganom Živojinovićem); Sjedinjene Američke Države i izazivači (2015) (zajedno sa mr Draganom Živojinovićem i MA Nikolom Jovićem) i Neutralnost u međunarodnim odnosima: šta možemo da naučimo iz iskustva Švajcarske? (zajedno sa prof. dr Dejanom Milenkovićem i mr Draganom Živojinovićem) iz 2016. godine. Pored toga, objavio je više desetina tekstova u naučnim i stručnim časopisima i zbornicima radova. Obavljao je dužnost prodekana za osnovne studije Fakulteta političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu (2003 – 2004.). Osnivač je i direktor Centra za studije Sjedinjenih Američkih Država na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu (2004). Centar za studije SAD je jedini centar te vrste u okviru jednog državnog univerziteta u regionu Jugoistočne Evrope. Utemeljio je sistematsko i obuhvatno izučavanje Amerikanistike u Srbiji. Takođe, šef je master akademskih studija SAD na Univerzitetu u Beogradu – Fakultetu političkih nauka. Član je uređivačkog odbora časopisa „Međunarodne studije“ iz Zagreba, „Review of International Affairs“, „Vojno delo“ i „Journal of Regional Security“ iz Beograda. Bio je stipendista Fulbrajtovog programa o spoljnoj politici SAD na Univerzitetu Južne Karoline (2003) i bio na stručnom usavršavanju na Metju B. Ridžvej Centru za međunarodne bezbednosne studije na Univerzitetu u Pitsburgu (2006.). Mr Dragan Živojinović (1975, Bogatić) je saradnik na Univerzitetu u Beogradu – Fakultetu političkih nauka na predmetu Međunarodni odnosi. Takođe, sekretar je Centra za studije Sjedinjenih Američkih Država Fakulteta političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu kao i sekretar master akademskih studija SAD na istom fakultetu. Područje interesovanja su mu Međunarodni odnosi, spoljna i bezbednosna politika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država

Biografije urednika pojmovnika

279

i spoljna politika Srbije. Sarađivao je u prevodu studije Džozefa Naja, Kako razumevati međunarodne sukobe (preveo prof. dr Dragan R. Simić, 2006), a bio jedan od prevodilaca knjige Džona Miršajmera, Tragedija politike velikih sila (2009) (zajedno sa prof. dr Draganom R. Simićem i Miljanom Filimonovićem) i Roberta D. Šulcingera, Američka diplomatija od 1900. godine (2011) (zajedno sa prof. dr Draganom R. Simićem) na srpski jezik. Pored toga, objavio je tridesetak tekstova u naučnim i stručnim časopisima i zbornicima radova. Urednik je sedam knjiga: Spoljna politika Srbije – strategije i dokumenta (zajedno sa Natašom Dragojlović, dr Stanislavom Sretenovićem i dr Draganom Đukanovićem) iz 2010. godine; Srbija u evropskom i globalnom kontekstu (zajedno sa prof. dr Radmilom Nakaradom) iz 2012. godine; Meka moć država (zajedno sa prof. dr Draganom R. Simićem i Nikolom Kosovićem) iz 2013. godine; Međunarodna bezbednost: teorijski pristupi: uvod u studije bezbednosti, (zajedno sa Milanom Lipovcem) iz 2014. godine; Politika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država prema regionu Zapadnog Balkana i Republici Srbiji (zajedno sa prof. dr Draganom R. Simićem) iz 2015. godine; Sjedinjene Američke Države i izazivači (2015) (zajedno sa prof. dr Draganom R. Simićem i MA Nikolom Jovićem) i Neutralnost u međunarodnim odnosima: šta možemo da naučimo iz iskustva Švajcarske? (zajedno sa prof. dr Draganom R. Simićem i prof. dr Dejanom Milenkovićem) iz 2016. godine. Diplomirao je i magistrirao na Univerzitetu u Beogradu – Fakultetu političkih nauka na smeru Međunarodni odnosi a trenutno na istom fakultetu piše doktorski rad. Bio je stipendista Fulbrajtovog programa o nacionalnoj bezbednosti SAD na Univerzitetu Kalifornije San Dijego. MA Stevan Nedeljković je rođen 17.10.1987. u Kraljevu, Republika Srbija. Osnovne akademske međunarodne studije završio je na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta

280

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

u Beogradu 2010. godine. Na istom Fakultetu je odbranio master tezu “Diplomatske strategije uključivanja Južne Afrike u multilateralnu formu Brazila, Rusije, Indije i Kine (BRIC)” dve godine kasnije. Zaposlen je kao asistent na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu od 2014. godine. Angažovan je na predmetima Međunarodne organizacije i Politika proširenja EU. Objavio je više autorskih i koautorskih članaka i prikaza knjiga iz oblasti međunarodnih odnosa, spoljne politike, međunarodnih organizacija i evropskih studija (primeri: “Usklađivanje nastupa Republike Srbije sa pozicijama Evropske unije na samitu OEBS-a u Astani” – sa Markom Dašićem 2011, “Spoljna politika Baraka Obame: analiza pregovora o nuklearnom programu Irana” – sa Markom Dašićem 2015, “Razlozi uspostavljanja delotvornog multilateralizma EU i (ne) uspeha u primeni koncepta” – 2015, “Stari i novi poslovi diplomata: od prenošenja poruke do javne diplomatije”, “Budućnost Evropske unije nakon Bregzita: kako napred ili kako nazad?” – sa Tanjom Miščević 2016 i drugi) . Učestvovao je na više međunarodnih naučnih konferencija u Srbiji i regionu. Osnivač je i direktor Centra za društveni dijalog i regionalne inicijative, nevladine organizacije sa sedištem u Beogradu. Kao menadžer i koordinator realizovao je više od dvadeset istraživačkih i edukativnih projekata u oblasti spoljne politike Republike Srbije, evropskih integracija, regionalnih odnosa i zaštite ljudskih i manjinskih prava. Od 2015. godine je član Nacionalnog konventa o Evropskoj uniji. Učestvuje u radnim grupama za poglavlja 30 i 31.

Biografija prevodioca pojmovnika

281

BIOGRAFIJA PREVODIOCA POJMOVNIKA Lana Avakumović je rođena 10. januara 1994. godine u Arilju. Nakon završene gimnazije u Arilju, 2013. godine upisala je Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu i trenutno je na četvrtoj godini osnovnih akademskih studija međunarodne politike. Završila je Akademiju liberalne politike Libertarijanskog kluba Libek, a trenutno je stipendista nemačke fondacije Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Bavi se društvenim aktivizmom, stažirala je u Narodnoj skupštini Republike Srbije, a trenutno je predsednik studentske organizacije “Studenti za slobodu – FPN”. Sfere interesovanja su joj politička sociologija, međunarodni odnosi, misaone igre i pisano i simultano prevođenje srpskog i engleskog jezika.

Biografije autora priloga u pojmovnika

283

BIOGRAFIJE AUTORA PRILOGA U POJMOVNIKU Aleksa Hol je rođena u Južnoj Karolini, u mestu Florens, i trenutno studira političke nauke na Univerzitetu Klemson. Zanimaju je međunarodni odnosi, međunarodna bezbednost i evropska politika. Tečno govori engleski i dobro vlada španskim jezikom. Keli Melton je rođena 22. januara 1994. godine u Grinvilu u Južnoj Karolini. Završila je Srednju školu “Travelers rest” gde je osvojila nagradu u oblasti uprave i politike. Trenutno je na četvrtoj godini osnovnih akademskih studija političkih nauka i istorije na Univerzitetu Klemson. Njena interesovanja obuhvataju međunarodne odnose, istoriju i filozofiju. Kelsi Šulenberg je rođena 5. aprila 1995. godine u Nebraski, u mestu Omaha. Pohađala je srednju školu “Palm Harbor Univerzitet” na Floridi gde je osvojila brojne nagrade u oblasti biomedicinske debate. Trenutno je na završnoj godini osnovnih akademskih studija psihologije i globalne politike na Univerzitetu Klemson. Oblasti interesovanja su joj debatovanje, izučavanje međunarodnih odnosa, hrana i kučići. Tečno govori engleski i poseduje osnovno znanje srpskog i francuskog jezika. Ketrin Geš je rođena 31. aprila 1991. godine u Čarlstonu u Južnoj Karolini. Završila je Srednju školu “Berkli” među 10 posto najboljih učenika. Trenutno je na trećoj godini osnovnih akademskih studija političkih nauka na Univerzitetu Klemson. Njena interesovanja obuhvataju međunarodne odnose, političku teoriju, novinarstvo i književnost.

284

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Kejleb Najt je rođen u Noksvilu u saveznoj državi Tenesi. Trenutno studira političke nauke na Univerzitetu Klemson i pohađa program razmene studenata u Beogradu. Sfere interesovanja su mu međunarodni odnosi, politička teorija i američka književnost. Potiče iz porodice vojnih lica i živeo je u različitim delovima Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, u čemu je uživao u velikoj meri. Rajan Bartli je rođen u San Francisku u Kaliforniji, a trenutno studira političke nauke i ekonomiju na Univerzitetu Klemson. Planira da diplomira u proleće 2017. godine. Maternji jezik mu je engleski, a pored toga tečno govori italijanski i dobro vlada ruskim, srpskim i španskim jezikom. Vajat Amaral je rođen 11. oktobra 1994. godine u mestu Napa u Kaliforniji. Tu je završio i srednju školu “DžastinSiena”. Trenutno je na trećoj godini osnovnih akademskih studija ekonomije na Univerzitetu Klemson u Južnoj Karolini, a na istom univerzitetu pohađa i program političkih nauka. Sfere zanimanja su mu ekonomija, pravo, statistika, sport i komparativni eknomski sistemi. Tečno govori engleski jezik i poseduje osnovno znanje španskog i srpskog jezika. Jelena Đukić je rođena 06. oktobra 1992. godine u Šapcu. Diplomu osnovnih akademskih studija u oblasti međunarodne politike stekla je na Fakultetu političkih nauka, Univerziteta u Beogradu. Trenutno je studentkinja master studija Međunarodne bezbednosti na Fakultetu političkih nauka kao stipendistkinja Misije OEBS-a u Srbiji i Švedske agencije za međunarodni razvoj i saradnju. Jelena je učestvovala u različitim međunarodnim programima kao što su Američki institut za političke i ekonomske sisteme, Međunarodna letnja škola komparativnih studija konflikata, i OEBS Akademija za dijaloga za mlade žene 2016. Takođe je bila angažovana na mnogobrojnim

Biografije autora priloga u pojmovnika

285

volontiranjima i stažiranjima; poput volontiranja tokom organizacije OEBS Ministarske konferencije u Beogradu, i stažiranja u GMF Balkanskom Fondu za demokratiju i Centru za evropske integracije. Jelena je prevashodno zainteresovana za oblasti kao što su američka spoljna politika i urodnjavanje reforme sektora bezbednosti, ali je takođe interesuju geopolitika i konflikti. Jedna je od ko-autora knjige Sjedinjene američke države i izazivači, i takođe je alumna Beogradske otvorene škole, Fonda za američke studije, i Evropskog fonda za Balkan. Tečno govori engleski jezik i poznaje osnove španskog jezika. Nevena Mančić je rođena 13. aprila 1992. godine u Alek­ sincu. 2015. godine je završila osnovne akademske studije međunarodne politike na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Trenutno je student regionalnih master studija mira na istoimenom fakultetu. Završila je školu Politicke komunikacije i socijaldemokratije pri Centru modernih veština. Stažista je Balkanskog fonda za demokratiju (German Marshal Fund of United States), kao i Beogradskog centra za bezbednosnu politiku. Aktivno se bavi slikarstvom. Sfere interesovanja su joj međunarodni odnosi, mir, bezbednost, spoljna politika, međunarodni ekonomski odnosi, istorija kao i umetnost, istorija moderne umetnosti i apstraktno slikarstvo. Govori tečno engleski jezik i poznaje osnove francuskog jezika. Nina Čaprić je rođena 11. avgusta 1994. godine u Beogradu. Trenutno je studentkinja četvrte godine Fakulteta političkih nauka, Univerziteta u Beogradu, modul međunarodna politika. Osim međunarodne politike njena akademska interesovanja su politički sistem Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, međunarodna bezbednost i ljudska prava. Poslednje dve godine provela je stažirajući u komercijalnom odeljenju Ambasade Sjedinjenih Američkih Država u Beogradu, a od 2014. godine je bila i aktivno

286

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

posvećena organizaciji Beogradskog internacionalnog modela Ujedinjenih nacija. Putovanja, knjige i muzika su njene najveće strasti. Milica Dragišić je rođena 6. novembra 1994.godine u Novom Sadu. Nakon završene gimnazije u Novom Sadu, upisuje Fakultet političkih nauka, Univerziteta u Beogradu. Trenutno je student četvrte godine na modulu Međunarodne studije. Pored međunarodnih odnosa, njene sfere interesovanja uključuju spoljnu politiku, politički sistem SAD-a, uporednu politiku i diplomatiju. Učestvovala je na brojnim konferencijama, kursevima i seminarima na ovu temu. Tečno govori engleski jezik, uči španski, a takođe poznaje i osnove nemačkog jezika Teodora Marković je rođena 28.01.1994. godine u Beogradu. Juna 2016. godine je završila osnovne akademske studije međunarodne politike na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Godine 2013. je postala licencirani turistički vodič za Srbiju i tri godine je radila na projektu „Belgrade Walking Tours“, čiji je cilj da upozna ljude koji dodju u posetu Beogradu sa njegovom istorijom, tradicijom i kulturom. U toku 2015. godine učestvovala je u dva navrata u programu „UNESCO World Heritage Volunteers“ u Nemačkoj i Portugalu, a tokom leta 2016. je bila deo organizacionog tima „European Heritage Volunteers“ na dva projekta iz istog programa u Nemačkoj. Trenutno radi na poziciji menadžera za projekte i komunikacije u Novinskoj agenciji Tanjug. Sfere interesovanja su joj istorija, međunarodni odnosi, kulturna diplomatija, očuvanje kulturne baštine i muzika. Govori engleski, španski i nemački jezik, a služi se osnovama italijanskog jezika. Andrej Ševo rođen je 24. maja 1994. godine i student je četvrte godine međunarodnih odnosa na Fakultetu političkih nauka, Univerziteta u Beogradu. Pored međuna-

Biografije autora priloga u pojmovnika

287

rodnih odnosa, politike u širem i politike u SAD u užem smislu, veliki je poštovalac umetnosti i prirode. Govori engleski jezik i poseduje bogato komunikativno iskustvo sa ljudima iz čitavog sveta, uglavnom kroz Model United Nations konferencije. Edin Sinanović je rođen u Prijepolju 06. maja 1991. godine. Završio je Pravno – birotehničku školu u Zemunu sa prosečnom ocenom 5,00, a proglašen je i za đaka generacije. Nakon toga upisuje studije međunarodnih odnosa na Fakultetu političkih nauka u Beogradu gde je diplomirao 2014. godine. Nakon diplomiranja na Fakultetu političkih nauka posvetio se humanitarnom radu. Trenutno je osnivač u upravitelj Fondacije za izbeglice i vodi projekat Dnevnog centra za izbeglice gde se pruža neformalno obrazovanje za izbeglice maloletnike bez pratnje. Jedan je od autora zbornika radova Sjedinjene Američke Države izazivači, objavljenog na Fakultetu političkih nauka. Posebno ga zanima politički sistem SAD-a, američka spoljna politika, istraživanje uticaja moći na odnose između društvenih grupa i pojedinaca, psihologija političkog ponašanja i Afrika. Govori engleski i španski jezik. Konstantin Lijaković je rođen 4. decembra 1994. godine u Beogradu. Završio je Četrnaestu beogradsku gimnaziju, nakon čega je 2013. godine upisao Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Trenutno je student četvrte godine osnovnih akademskih studija politikologije. Pohađao je Akademiju liberalne politike Libertarijanskog kluba Libek i član je studentske organizacije Studenti za slobodu – FPN. Sfere interesovanja su mu ekonomija, metodologija, šah i provođenje vremena u prirodi – izviđanje i planinarenje. Konstantin Magdić je rođen 7. septembra 1992. godine u Beogradu. Nakon završene Prve beogradske gimnazi-

288

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

je, 2011. godine upisuje Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Trenutno je apsolvent osnovnih akademskih studija politikologije. Oblasti interesovanja su mu istorija, religija, bezbednost, geopolitika, međunarodni odnosi. Pored maternjeg govori i engleski jezik, a poseduje i osnovno znanje ruskog jezika. Marko Despotović je rođen je u Beogradu 28. juna 1992. godine. Završio je sa odličnim uspehom Osnovnu školu „Ujedinjene nacije“ i srednju Pravno-poslovnu školu Beograd. Nakon toga upisuje Fakultet političkih nauka. U periodu od 2012. do 2014. bio je član Saveta Fakulteta političkih nauka u svojstvu studentskog predstavnika. Učesnik mnogobrojnih seminara i edukacija, među kojima su najvažniji program Youth Capstone Coalition u organizaciji Međunarodnog republikanskog instituta i Druga beogradska NATO nedelja u organizaciji Centra za evroatlantske studije. Trenutno je član projektnog sektora u nevladinoj organizaciji Centar za edukaciju i društvenu emancipaciju mladih (CEDEM). Sfere interesovanja su mu spoljna politika SAD, Hladni rat, geopolitika, međunarodna bezbednost i oblast vojske i naoružanja. Tečno govori engleski jezik. Milan Ranković je rođen 3.1.1992. godine u Beogradu. Završio je Dvanaestu beogradsku gimnaziju sa odličnim uspehom. Trenutno pohađa Master međunarodne studije – Modul: Studije SAD na Fakultetu političkih nauka u Beogradu. Na istom fakultetu diplomirao je na osnovnim studijama novinarstva. Bio je jedan od autora priloga u zborniku Sjedinjene Američke Države i izazivači i svojevremeno urednik fakultetskog časopisa Politikolog. Njegove sfere interesovanja su: bezbednost, vojne strategije, politika, međunarodni odnosi i demokratija. Pavle Jakšić je rođen 24. juna 1981. godine u Beogradu. Završio je Četvrtu beogradsku gimnaziju. Diplomirao je

Biografije autora priloga u pojmovnika

289

na Fakulteta političkih nauka, Univerziteta u Beogradu na smeru međunarodnih odnosa. Godine 2014. je završio Diplomatsku akademiju Ministarstva spoljnih poslova sa prosekom 9. U Ministarstvu spoljnih poslova radio je u okviru odeljenja za Evropsku uniju, kao korespodent za Norvešku, Finsku i Dansku. 2015. godine uspešno je završio master akademske studije Univerziteta u Beogradu na smeru Terorizam, organizovani kriminal i bezbednost. Sfere interesovanja su mu međunarodni odnosi u globalu, sa akcentom na Bliski istok, diplomatija, umetnost, muzika. Govori engleski i španski jezik, a poznaje osnove rumunskog i italijanskog jezika. Slobodan Brkić je rođen je 21. decembra, 1989. godine u Beogradu. Trenutno je student na smeru međunarodna politika, na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Istovremeno posao mu je u sferi informatičke bezbednosti: pravljenje antivirusnih programa, web stranica, baza podataka, zaštita bankovnih računa i bezbednosnih servera protiv hakera, mrežna i sistemska administracija i mnoge druge slične stvari. Govori 5 jezika uključujući engleski, španski, italijanski, srpski i japanski. Takođe svira i klavir. Pored toga interesuju ga međunarodni odnosi, istorija, filozofija i muzika. Stefan Simić rođen je 1992. godine u Beogradu. Završio je osnovnu školu „Veselin Masleša“ na Voždovcu. Srednju skolu zavrsio je u USA, Galesburg highschool. Učestvovao je u brojnim diskusijama i okruglim stolovima organizovanim pod pokroviteljstvom Centra za američke studije SAD. Trenutno je student četvrte godine Fakulteta političkih nauka, modul međunarodna politika. Student je 24. generacije Beogradske otvorene skole. Oblasti interesovanja su mu međunarodni odnosi i politička teorija. Stefan Tasić je rođen 12. decembra 1993. godine u Vranju. Završio je Gimnaziju „Bora Stanković“ u Vranju, sa

290

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

odličnim uspehom. Trenutno je student treće godine osnovnih akademskih studija, na Fakultetu političkih nauka, Univerziteta u Beogradu, na smeru Politikologija. Bavi se omladinskim političkim i socijalnim aktivizmom. Takođe je predsednik Omladinske demokratske asocijacije (ODA). Pored maternjeg jezika, govori engleski, služi se španskim. Uroš Kusturić je rođen 30. marta 1993. godine u Beogradu. Posle završene gimnazije u Odžacima, 2011. godine upisuje Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu koji je nedavno i završio. Oblasti interesovanja su mu istorija, politikologija religije, geopolitika, međunarodni odnosi. Pored maternjeg govori engleski jezik, a poseduje i osnovno znanje ruskog i italijanskog jezika.

Biographies of the Handbook’s Editors

291

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE HANDBOOK’S EDITORS

Dr. Dragan R. Simić (1961, Medveđa, Serbia) is full time professor and dean of the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Political Sciences. He teaches International Relations; National and Global Security; Grand Strategies and Strategic Thinking; Geopolitics; U.S. Foreign and Security Policy; Serbian-U.S. Relations at the Faculty of Political Sciences University of Belgrade as well as at a number of the universities in the region (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Italy, Greece, U.S.A., etc.). He is a Lecturer at the Diplomatic Academy „Koča Popović“ of the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; at the Military Academy and other high ranking military schools in Serbia. In 2014, Prof. Simić has been elected for a professor at the Clemson University, South Carolina, U.S.A., upon the Cooperation Agreement between the American university and the Centre for the U.S. Studies of the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Political Sciences. As a chief editor of IIC SSO Srbije (1986 – 1990), he edited over 60 monographies; and was an editor in chief of following magazines Ideje, Velike i Male edicije Ideja. He edited Selected works of Wilhelm Reich in 5 volumes. His published work include: Positive Peace (1993), World Order (1999), Science on Security (2002), World Politics (2009), Discussion about Order, Second Edition (2012); From English to Serbian he translated next books: Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Understanding International Conflicts (2006), John J. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2009) (with Dragan Živojinović and Dr. Miljan Filimonović); and Robert D. Schulzinger, U.

292

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

S. Diplomacy since 1900 (2011) (with Dragan Živojinović). Also, he was editor of five books: Western Balkans Integration in the Global Security Web (2011); Soft Power of the States (2013.) (with Dragan Živojinović i Nikola Kosović); U. S. Policy towards Western Balkans and Serbia (2015) (with Dragan Živojinović); The United States of America and Challengers (2015) (with Dragan Živojinović and MA Nikola Jović) and Neutrality in International Relations: What we can learn from Swiss Experience? (with Prof. Dr. Dejan Milenković and Dragan Živojinović) in 2016. In addition, he published dozens of articles in scientific journals and conferences’ proceedings. He served as a Vice Dean for undergraduate studies of the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Political Science (2003 – 2004). He is a founder and director of the Center for the Studies of the United States of America at the Faculty of Political Sciences University of Belgrade (since 2004). The Center is the one of its kind in the context of a Public University in the region of Southeast Europe. Prof. Simić established a systematic and comprehensive study of American Studies in Serbia, and is a head of the master academic studies of the United States at the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Political Sciences. He is a member of the editorial board of the journal “International Studies” from Zagreb, Croatia; “Review of International Affairs”, “Vojno delo” and “Journal of Regional Security” from Belgrade. He was a U.S. Foreign Policy Fulbright Program Fellow at the University of South Carolina (2003) and underwent a professional training at Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies at the University of Pittsburgh (2006). Dragan Živojinović, (1975., Bogatić, Serbia) is an research associate at the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Political Science in International Relations. He serves as a Secretary of the Center for the Studies of

Biographies of the Handbook’s Editors

293

the United States of America at the Faculty of Political Sciences University of Belgrade, as well as the Secretary of the U.S. master of studies at the same Faculty. His areas of interest include: International Relations, Foreign and Security Policy of the United States, and the Foreign policy of Serbia. He assisted in translation of Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Book Understanding International Conflicts in Serbian (translator, prof. dr Dragan R. Simić, 2006), and was one of the translators of John J. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2009) (with prof. dr. Dragan R. Simić and Dr. Miljan Filimonović) and Robert D. Schulzinger, U. S. Diplomacy since 1900 (2011) (with prof. dr. Dragan R. Simić) in Serbian. In addition he published around thirty papers and articles in scientific journals and conferences’ proceedings. He edited following publications: Foreign Policy of Serbia: Strategies and Documents (with MA Nataša Dragojlović, dr. Stanislav Sretenović and dr. Dragan Đukanović) in 2010; Serbia in European and Global Context ( with prof. dr Radmila Nakarada) in 2012; Soft Power of the States (with prof. dr. Dragan R. Simić i Nikola Kosović) in 2013; International Security: Theoretical Approaches: Introduction to Security Studies, (with Milan Lipovac) in 2014; U. S. Policy towards Western Balkans and Serbia (with prof. Dr. Dragan R. Simić) in 2015; The United States of America and Challengers (with prof. Dr. Dragan R. Simić and MA Nikola Jović) (2015) and Neutrality in International Relations: What we can learn from Swiss Experience? (with prof. Dr. Dragan R. Simić and prof. Dr. Dejan Milenković) in 2016. He graduated from the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Political Sciences at the Department of International Relations and is currently writing his doctoral thesis at the same Faculty. In 2006, he was a U.S. National Security Fulbright Program Fellow at the University of California San Diego.

294

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

MA Stevan Nedeljković is born on October 17th 1987 in Kraljevo, Republic of Serbia. He finished his undergraduate studies at Faculty of Political Sciences University of Belgrade in 2010. At the same Faculty, he defended his master thesis “South Africa’s diplomatic strategy in approaching multilateral form of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC)” in 2012. Stevan Nedeljković has been employed as a teaching assistant at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade since 2014. He is engaged in courses International Organizations and EU Enlargement Policy. He has published several articles and book reviews in the field of international relations, foreign policy, international organizations and European studies (such as: “Compatibility of the Performance of the Republic of Serbia with the EU Positions at the OSCE Summit in Astana” – with Marko Dašić in 2011, “Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy: Analysis of the Iranian Nuclear Talks” – with Marko Dašić in 2015, “Reasons for Establishing the EU Effective Multilateralism and (Un)Success in Implementation of the Concept” – in 2015, “Old and New Diplomat’s Tasks: from Transmitting the Message to Public Diplomacy in 2015, “The Future of the European Union after Brexit: How to Go forward or How to Go Back?” – with Tanja Miščević in 2016). He participated in several international scientific conferences in Serbia and the Western Balkans region. He is a founder and Director of the Center for Social Dialogue and Regional Initiatives, an NGO based in Belgrade. As a manager and coordinator, he conducted more than twenty research and educational projects in the field of foreign policy of the Republic of Serbia, European integration, regional relations and protection of human and minority rights. Since 2015, he is a member of the National Convention on the European Union, participating in working groups for Chapters 30 and 31.

Biography of the Handbook’s Translator

295

BIOGRAPHY OF THE HANDBOOK’S TRANSLATOR

Lana Avakumovic was born on January 10th 1994 in Arilje. After graduating high school, she enrolled in the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University in Belgrade, and is currently in her senior year of undergraduate studies in international politics. She attended the Public Policy Academy at Libertarian Club Libek, and is currently in a scholarship program at Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, a German foundation. She is engaged in activism, was an intern at the National Assembly of Serbia and is now president of a student organization “Students for Liberty – FPN”. Fields of interest include political sociology, international relations, brain games, and written and simultaneous translating in Serbian and English.

Biographies of the Handbook’s Authors

297

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE HANDBOOK’S AUTHORS

Alexa Hall was born in Florence, South Carolina and attends Clemson University as a Political Science major. She enjoys international relations, international security, and European Politics. She is fluent in English and proficient in Spanish. Kelly Melton was born on January 22, 1994 in Greenville, South Carolina. She attended Travelers Rest High School where she received the senior award for Government and Politics. She is currently in her senior year of undergraduate studies at Clemson University where her major is Political Science and her minor is History. Her topics of interest include international relations, history, and philosophy. Kelsea Schulenberg was born on April 5th, 1995 in Omaha, Nebraska in the United States. She attended Palm Harbor University High School in Florida where she won numerous awards for biomedical debate. She is currently a rising senior of undergraduate studies in Psychology and Global Politics at Clemson University. Her interests include debating, studying international relations, eating and playing with puppies. She is fluent in English and has a basic knowledge of Serbian and French. Katherine Gash was born April 30, 1991 in Charleston, South Carolina in the United States. She graduated from Berkeley High School in the top 10 percent of her class. She is currently in her junior year of undergraduate stud-

298

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

ies at Clemson University, where she is majoring in Political Science. Her interests include international relations, political theory, journalism, and literature. Caleb Knight was born in Knoxville, Tennessee. He is studying Political Science at Clemson University and is participating in a student exchange program in Belgrade, Serbia. His fields of interest are international relations, political theory and American literature. He comes from a military family and has lived in several parts of the United States which he really enjoyed. Ryan Bartley, a native of San Francisco, California, is a Clemson University student on course to obtain both a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and also one in Economics. He plans on graduating in Spring, 2017. His native tongue being English, he also speaks Italian in addition to some French, Russian, Serbian, and Spanish.  Wyatt Amaral was born on October 11th, 1994 in Napa, California. He attended Justin-Siena High School in Napa. Currently, he is an Economics student at Clemson University in his third year of undergraduate studies, with a minor in political science. His topics of interest include economics and law, statistics, sports, and comparative economic systems. He is fluent in English and has basic knowledge of Spanish and Serbian. Jelena Đukić was born on October 6th, 1992 in Šabac. She holds a BA degree in International relations from the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade. She is currently enrolled in a master program of International security at the Faculty of Political Sciences as a scholar of OSCE Mission in Serbia and Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Jelena has participated in various international programs such as American Institute on Political and Economic Systems,

Biographies of the Handbook’s Authors

299

International Summer School in Comparative Conflict Studies, and OSCE Dialogue Academy for Young Women 2016. She has also been engaged in numerous volunteering activities and internships; like the volunteering during organisation of 22nd OSCE Ministerial Council held in Belgrade, and internships at German Marshall Fund – Balkan Trust for Democracy, and Center for European Integrations. Jelena has a strong interest primarily in American foreign policy, and gender mainstreaming of security sector reform, but also in geopolitics and conflicts. She is one of the co-authors of the book United States and the Challengers, and also an alumna of Belgrade Open School, The Fund for American Studies, and European Fund for the Balkans. She is fluent in English and has a basic knowledge of Spanish. Nevena Mančić was born on April 13th, 1992 in Aleksinac. She gained her BA degree in International Relations and Affairs on Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade, in 2015. She finished school of Political Communication and Social Democracy in Center of Modern Skills. Currently, she is at her MA studies of Regional Master’s Program of Peace Studies at the same Faculty. Nevena is an intern in Balkan Trust for Democracy (German Marshall Fund of United States) and Belgrade Centre for Security Policy. She is also a freelance painter. Her fields of interests are international relations, peace, security, foreign policy, international economic relations, history but art, history of modern art and abstract painting as well. She is fluent in English and has a basic knowledge of French. Nina Čaprić was born on August 11th, 1994, in Belgrade. She is currently a fourth year student of International Relations at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade. Besides International Relations, her academic interests are the U.S. Political System, International Se-

300

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

curity and Human Rights. For the last two years she has been an intern at the Embassy of the United States of America in Belgrade, Department of Commerce, and was also actively involved in the organization of Belgrade International Model United Nations since 2014. Traveling, books and music are her biggest passions. Milica Dragisic was born on November 6th, 1994 in Novi Sad. After finishing high school in Novi Sad in 2013, she enrolles at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade. She is currently fourth year student of International Relations. Besides international relations, her fields of interests are foreign policy, US political system, comparative politics and diplomacy. She has participated in many conferences, courses and seminars on this subjects. Along with being fluent at English, she is studying Spanish and has basic knowledge of German. Teodora Markovic was born on January 28­th, 1994 in Belgrade. She gained her BA degree in International Relations and Affairs on the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade, in June 2016. She has been a licensed local tour guide for Serbia since 2013 and has worked on the project Belgrade Walking Tours for three years; the project aims to introduce the visitors of Belgrade with its history, tradition and culture. During 2015 she was a participant in the UNESCO World Heritage Volunteers program twice – in Germany and Portugal – and during the summer of 2016 she was part of the European Heritage Volunteers organizing team on two projects of the same program in Germany. She is currently employed at News Agency Tanjug as a project and communications manager. Her fields of interest are history, international relations, cultural diplomacy, cultural heritage preservation and music. She speaks English, Spanish and German and has a basic knowledge of Italian.

Biographies of the Handbook’s Authors

301

Andrej Ševo was born on May 24th, 1994 and is a fourth year student of International Relations at Faculty of Political Sciences of Belgrade University. Besides International Relations, Politics in broad and USA Politics in narrow sence, he is a great admirer of Arts and Nature. He speaks English language and has a rich communicative experience with people from all over the world, mostly through Model United Nations Conferences. Edin Sinanović was born on May 6th, 1991 in Prijepolje, Serbia. He finished his high school education with the highest grade and he was declared as the best student in his class. He gained his BA degree in International Relations and Affairs on Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade, in 2014. After graduation he committed to providing humanitarian aid. Today he is a founder and an executive of a non-profit Refugees Foundation and a project manager of a Daily Center for refugees where refugees, who are unattended minors are able to get informal education. He is one of the authors of a textbook The United States of America and Challengers published at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade. His fields of interests are American political system, US’s foreign policy, research of influence of power in relations of groups and individuals, psychology of political behavior and Africa. He is fluent in English and can speak Spanish. Konstantin Lijakovic was born on December 4th, 1994 in Belgrade, Serbia. He graduated from the Fourteenth Belgrade Gymnasium, after which he enrolled in the Faculty of Political Sciences in 2013. He is currently a senior undergraduate student of political science. He attended the Public Policy Academy organized by the Libertarian Club Libek, and is a member of Students for Liberty – FPS, a student organization based at the Faculty. His fields of

302

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

interest are economy, methodology, chess and spending time outdoors – scouting and hiking. Konstantin Magdić was born on September 7th, 1992 in Belgrade, Serbia. After having graduated from the First Belgrade Gymnasium, he enrolled in the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Belgrade in 2011. He is currently a senior undergraduate student of political science. His interests include history, religion, security studies, geopolitics, and international relations. He speaks English and has a basic knowledge of Russian. Marko Despotović Marko Despotovic was born on June 28th, 1992 in Belgrade, Serbia. He went to the “United Nations” elementary school, and the Legal and Business high school in Belgrade. After that, he enrolled the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University in Belgrade. Between 2012 and 2014, he was a member of the Faculty Council as a student body representative. He participated in numerous seminars and education programs, most important ones being the Youth Capstone Coalition organized by the International Republican Institute, and the Second Belgrade NATO Week organized by the Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies. He is currently in the project sector at the Center for Education and Social Emancipation of Youth (CEDEM), a Serbian NGO. His fields of interest are US foreign policy, the Cold War, geopolitics, international security, and army and armament. He is fluent in English. Milan Ranković was born on January 3th, 1992. He attended 12th Belgrade Gymnasium with excellent grades. Currently, he is on a postgraduate Master international studies- Module: Studies of the U.S on the Faculty of political sciences in Belgrade. Recently, he graduated at journalism department on the same faculty. Milan was one of the authors of the handbook Amerika i izazivači

Biographies of the Handbook’s Authors

303

and one period of time an editor of the faculty magazine Politikolog. His points of interests are: security, military strategy, politics, international relations, democracy and so on. Pavle Jakšić was born on June 24th, 1981 in Belgrade. He went to the Fourth Belgrade Gymnasium with excellent grades. He is BA in Political Science – International Affairs, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade and MA in Political Science – Terrorism, Organised Crime and Security, Graduate Academic International Studies, University of Belgrade. He has also worked at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia as an advisor to the Department of EU Affairs an Finished Diplomatic Academz Practice, where he was grade 9/10. His topics of interest include international relations in general, diplomacy, with an emphasis on Middle East, art, history and music. He is fluent in English and Spanish and has basic knowledge of Romanian and Italian. Slobodan Brkic was born on December 21th, 1989, in Belgrade. He is currently studying International Relations at the Faculty of Political Science. In the same time his job is related to IT security: making antivirus software, websites, databases, protecting bank accounts and security servers against hackers and cyber criminals, network and system administration and many other similar things. He speaks 5 languages including english, spanish, italian, serbian and japanese. Also he plays piano. Except that his fields of interests are about international relations, history, philosophy and music. Stefan Simic was born in 1992 in Belgrade, Serbia. He went to “Veselin Maslesa” Elementary School, and graduated from Galesburg High school in the United States. He has participated in numerous discussions and round tables organized by the Center of American Studies at

304

The Handbook of the U.S. Presidential Election 2016

the Faculty of Political Sciences. He is currently a senior in undergraduate studies of International Politics at the said Faculty. He is also a student of the 24th generation of the Belgrade Open School. His interests include international relations and political theory. Stefan Tasic was born on December 12th, 1993. in Vranje. He went to Gymnasium “Bora Stankovic” also in Vranje and finished it with excellent grades. He is currently in his third year of undergraduate studies at the Faculty of Political Sciences of University of Belgrade, Department of Political Science. He is involved in youth political and social activism. He is also the President of Youth Democratic Association. Beside his native language, he is fluent in English and has basic knowledge of Spanish. Uros Kusturic was born on March 30th, 1993 in Belgrade, Serbia. He graduated high school in Odzaci and enrolled at the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Belgrade in which he is just graduated. His fields of interest include history, political science of religion, geopolitics, and international relations. His native tongue is Serbian, and he is fluent in English with a basic knowledge of Russian and Italian.

CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији Народна библиотека Србије, Београд 342.849.2(73)"2016" 323(73)"2016" POJMOVNIK američkih predsedničkih izbora 2016 = The Handbook of the U.S. Presidental Elections 2016 : zbornik radova / [urednici Dragan R. Simić, Dragan Živojinović, Stevan Nedeljković ; prevod Lana Avakumović]. - Beograd : Fakultet političkih nauka, 2016 (Beograd : Čigoja štampa). - 304 str. : tabele, grafikoni ; 20 cm Srp. tekst i engl. prevod. - Tiraž 500. - Str. 13-16: Uvodna reč / Dragan R. Simić, Dragan Živojinović, Stevan Nedeljković. - Biografije urednika pojmovnika: str. 277-280. - Biografija prevodioca pojmovnika: str. 281. - Biografije autora priloga u pojmovniku: str. 283-290. - Napomene i bibliografske reference uz tekst. ISBN 978-86-6425-016-0 1. Up. stv. nasl. a) Избори - САД - 2016 - Зборници b) САД - Политичке прилике - 2016 Зборници COBISS.SR-ID 227007756