POJMOVNIK AMERIČKIH PREDSEDNIČKIH IZBORA 2016

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

IzdavačUniverzitet u Beogradu,

Fakultet političkih nauka

Za izdavačaProf. dr Dragan R. Simić

UredniciProf. dr Dragan R. SimićMr Dragan ŽivojinovićMA 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

7Sadržaj

VIII REČNIK AMERIČKIH IZBORA

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

8 Sadržaj

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

Biografije urednika Pojmovnika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277Biografija prevodioca Pojmovnika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281Biografije autora priloga u Pojmovniku . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

9Content

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

11Content

VIII GLOSSARY OF U. S. ELECTION TERMS

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

12 Content

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

Biographies of the Handbook‘s Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291Biography of the Handbook’s translator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295Biographies of the Hanbook’s authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

13Uvodna reč

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. Aktivno-sti na izradi pojmovnika su započete u februaru ove godine i rezultat su zajedničkog rada dve grupe stude-nata, jedne sa Univerziteta Klemson iz Južne Karoli-ne (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 Sjedinje-nih Američkih Država i Departmana za političke na-uke 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 pola-žu pet predmeta koji su im kasnije po povratku u SAD bili priznati kao da su ih tamo polagali. Pored predme-ta koji su deo fakultetskog kurikuluma na Klemsonu (Spoljna politika SAD, Teorije međunarodnih odno-sa, Evropske integracije i Međunarodna ekonomija), a koje su izvodili profesori Dragan R. Simić, Tanja Mi-ščević, Maja Kovačević i Ivan Vujačić, u okviru pred-meta „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, raz-govarala i debatovala o američkim predsedničkim iz-borima 2016. godine, kao i parlamentarnim izborima u Srbiji održanim 24. aprila. Kao rezultat te saradnje i potrebe da se američki predsednički izbori približe za-interesovanoj 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 izda-je Istraživačka služba američkog Kongresa (Congressi-onal Research Service).1 Pojmovnik se sastoji od sedam celina: 1) Pozadina i kontekst izbora; 2) Preliminarni izbori; 3) Nacionalne partijske konvencije; 4) Kampa-nje; 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 (pristu-pljeno 20. 1. 2016.)

15Uvodna reč

onako kako je on izgledao u trenutku kada je napisan. Da bi se tekst približio i čitaocima u Sjedinjenim Dr-žavama, kao i zbog činjenice da su američki studen-ti svoje tekstove pisali na engleskom, odlučili smo da pojmovnik štampamo dvojezično, na srpskom i engle-skom jeziku. Zahvalnost za prevod pojmovnika dugu-jemo koleginici Lani Avakumović, studentkinji četvrte godine na Odeljenju za međunarodne studije Fakulteta političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Svega ovo-ga ne bi bilo bez pomenute saradnje sa Univerzitetom Klemson, i za to su najzaslužniji profesori Vladimir Matić i Džef Pik, šef tamošnjeg Departmana za politič-ke nauke. Sastavni deo ove knjige čini i „Rečnik ame-ričkih izbora“ koji smo 2012. godine, tokom prethod-nih predsedničkih izbora u SAD uradili sa tadašnjom generacijom studenata master studija SAD na Fakulte-tu 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 pola-znika master studija SAD što je učestvovala u jednom takvom poduhvatu. Na kraju, najveću zahvalnost du-gujemo 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: Kat-herine Gash, Kelsea Schulenberg, Kelly Melton, Alexa Hall, Ryan Bartley, Caleb Knight, Wyatt Amaral (Sje-dinjene Američke Države), Teodori Marković, Neveni Mančić, Jeleni Đukić, Nini Čaprić, Milici Dragišić, Lani Avakumović, Marku Despotoviću, Milanu Rankoviću, Slobodanu Brkiću, Urošu Kusturiću, Konstantinu Lija-koviću, Konstantinu Magdiću, Stefanu Tasiću, Stefanu Simiću, Andreju Ševu, Pavlu Jakšiću, Edinu Sinanovi-ću, Mijatu Kostiću (Republika Srbija)... Ambasada Sje-dinjenih Američkih Država i Balkanski fond za demo-kratiju 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 godina-ma koje su pred nama.

U Beogradu, na Miholjdan, Prof. dr Dragan R. Simić, 12. oktobra 2016. godine mr Dragan Živojinović, MA Stevan Nedeljković

I

POZADINA I KONTEKST

19Pozadina i kontekst

Jelena Đukić,* Nevena Mančić**

OSVAJANJE NOMINACIJE

Potencijalni kandidati za američke predsedničke iz-bore moraju da pređu dug put pre nego što ih njihove partije zvanično nominuju. To je jedan od osnovnih ra-zloga zbog kog predsednička izborna kampanja počinje toliko rano. Pre nego što kandidat objavi da će se nad-metati 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 detalj-nog plana kampanje, prikupljanje finansijskih sredstava ili čak pohađanje seminara ili škola kako bi celokupna or-ganizacija 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 nacio-nalnoj 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] 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 građa-ni imaju priliku za direktno učešće. Preliminarni izbori su slični klasičnim izborima gde učesnici odlaze na lokal-na biračka mesta i glasaju za kandidata po svom izboru. Kokusi imaju deliberativni karakter budući da se na nji-ma raspravlja o izboru delegata koji će predstavljati drža-ve na narednom nivou, nacionalnoj konvenciji. Partijski komiteti u svakoj pojedinačnoj državi samostalno odlu-čuju o pravilima svojih izbora. Posledično, postoje razli-čite kombinacije, te preliminarni izbori, odnosno kokusi, mogu biti otvoreni ili zatvoreni, obavezujući ili neobave-zujući, kao i proporcionalni ili većinski. Nezavisni kan-didati 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 partij-ske 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 održa-na 47. nacionalna konvencija Demokratske partije u Fi-ladelfiji, kao i 41. nacionalna konvencija Republikanske partije u Klivlendu.4 Da bi osvojili nominacije na konven-cijama, kandidati moraju da obezbede podršku delegata, tako da su određeni dani preliminarnih izbora, prikazani

2 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/le-ssons-plans/current-events/nomination-process/, (pristupljeno 13. marta 2016.)

3 Isto 4 https://www.usa.gov/election#item-211665, (pristupljeno 13. mar-

ta 2016.)


na slici ispod, od izuzetnog značaja za njihov uspeh. Dele-gati 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 kriteriju-mi poput broja stanovnika, predstavnika države u Kon-gresu ili lokalnim vladama koji su članovi partije, kao i obrazaca glasanja država na prethodnim predsedničkim izborima.6 Poslednjeg dana konvencije, nominovani kan-didati za predsednika i potpredsednika izlažu priprem-ljene govore. Posle završenih konvencija prelazi se na opšte predsedničke izbore.

Predsednički kandidati učestvuju u debatama i iz-bornoj 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 kandi-datu 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 elektor-skog kolegijuma predstavlja izuzetno važan činilac dugo-ročne političke stabilnosti SAD-a.

5 http://www.cfr.org/elections/us-presidential-nominating-proce-ss/p37522, (pristupljeno 13. marta 2016.)

6 https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-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.)


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 nomi-nacije je uvela Komisija za strukture partija i izbor dele-gata (The Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection), poznatija kao Komisija „MekGavern-Frejzer“.1 Ko misija je formirana kao odgovor na kontroverznu na-cionalnu 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 Vijetna-mu. 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] https://poliscinews.wordpress.com/tag/mcgovern-fraser-com-

mission/, George McGovern and the Primary Process. (2012, Oc-tober 24). Pristupljeno 1. marta 2016.

2 Isto 3 Isto


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 pre-liminarnih izbora, Hamfri je osvojio najviše glasova dele-gata jer je iza njega stajao partijski vrh.


Hamfrijeva nominacija je dovela do raskola unu-tar Demokratske partije4 koji je rezultirao formiranjem Komisije MekGavern-Frejzer u cilju pospešivanja pro-cesa nominovanja.5 Pre nastanka Komisije, predsednič-kog kandidata su uglavnom birali partijski lideri i bilo je znatno manje preliminarnih izbora i uopšte učešća jav-nosti. 6 Shodno tome, same kampanje su počinjale kasnije i trajale kraće, a nisu postojala ni ograničenja troškova na federalnom nivou.7 Takođe, medijska pokrivenost izbor-ne kampanje je bila relativno mala u poređenju sa pro-storom i pažnjom koju danas dobija. Svi navedeni činioci doveli su do toga da pre 1968. godine gotovo nije ni po-stojao 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 iz-bori 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 uglav-nom najviši partijski funkcioneri za koje se pretpostavlja

4 Isto 5 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 Isto8 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 Isto11 Isto


da će najbolje zastupati volju celokupnog članstva.12 Iz-bori 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 ve-liku 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 nominova-ni.15 Glasovi delegata se dodeljuju ili posredstvom izbor-nog 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 trenut-no postoje samo u Demokratskoj stranci i imaju slobodu da podrže kandidata po svom izboru.

Nova pravila koja je uvela Komisija Mekgavern-Frej-zer su prvi put stupila na snagu na predsedničkim izbo-rima 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 preli-minarnih izbora unosi neravnotežu u čitav proces i odu-zima značaj glasovima država koje izbore održavaju ka-snije. Međutim, ne postoji razlog da proces nominovanja

12 Isto 13 Isto 14 Isto 15 Isto16 Isto


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

Izvor: Istraživački centar „Pew“

Ostali izvori:

Our Campaigns – US President – D Primaries Race – Mar 12, 1. 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 pre-2. sidential nomination. (n.d.). From https://web.archive.org/web/2009 1027101746/http://, geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes /3991/Dem1968.html. Retrieved April 21, 2016.


DeSilver, D. (2016, February 17). Near-record number of prima-3. ries this year, but not quite as early. From http://www.pewrese-arch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/17/nearrecord-number-of-primari-es-this-year-but-not-quite-as-early/. Retrieved April 22, 2016.


Slobodan Brkić,* Milan Ranković**

IZBOR DELEGATA

Gopal Ratnam (Gopal Ratnam) i Džonatan Masters (Jonathan Masters) definišu delegate kao “partijske ak-tiviste, lokalne političke lidere ili članove partija koji od samog početka podržavaju određenog kandidata... među delegatima se mogu naći i članovi upravnih odbora kam-panje ili oni koji su duže vreme aktivni u lokalnim partij-skim organizacijama”.1 Kevin J. Kolman (Kevin J. Cole-man) 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 dele-gata ili delegacije celih država, zato što su delegati bira-ni na zatvorenim sastancima ili konvencijama stranaka. Predsedničkim kandidatima je bila neophodna podrška lidera i šefova tako da su dogovori sa njima bili od presud-nog značaja“.2 On navodi i da su dva osnovna načina izbo-ra delegata za nacionalne konvencije preliminarni izbori i kokusi.3 L. Sendi Mejzel (L. Sandy Maisel) ističe da su

* [email protected]** [email protected] 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 na-tional party conventions, 2016: Frequently asked questions, Congres-sional research service, December 30, 2015, p. 1.

3 Ibidem.


„pre izbora 1832. godine partije počele da održavaju kon-vencije 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 de-legata 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 predstav-ljanju 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 demokrat-skim biračima.6

Pravila procedure izbora delegata i prikupljanja sredstava zahtevaju da kandidati obezbede široku narod-nu podršku kako u pojedinačnim državama (za delegate), tako i preko njihovih granica (za novac), ističu Polski, Vil-davski, 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 te-

4 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 edi-tion, 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.


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. godi-ne kandidatu Demokratske partije biće potrebno najma-nje 2,382 od ukupno 4,673 delegata kako bi osvojio nomi-naciju, dok će kandidat Republikanske partije morati da osvoji glasove 1,237 delegata od ukupno 2,472.9

8 Ibidem.9 Gopal Ratnam, Jonathan Masters, The U.S presidential nominating

process, op.cit.

31Preliminarni izbori

II

PRELIMINARNI IZBORI



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 uglav-nom počinju šest meseci pre opštih. Svrha preliminarnih izbora jeste da obe vodeće partije odaberu po jednog kan-didata koji će se nadmetati na opštim izborima. Predstojeći deo pojmovnika biće fokusiran na različite aspekte proce-sa preliminarnih izbora, uključujući institucionalnu orga-nizaciju i njihov uticaj na politički sistem SAD-a.

Poreklo preliminarnih izbora

Dva su ključna razloga dovela do nastanka prelimi-narnih izbora: odbacivanje sistema partijskih konvencija i uvođenje tajnog glasanja koje je omogućilo slobodne iz-bore za nominovanje kandidata unutar partija. Prvi pre-liminarni 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]


konstantno povećava i uvedeni su u većini pojedinač-nih 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 bu-dući da samo četrnaest država primenjuje sistem koku-sa. Preliminarni izbori se odvijaju u organizaciji izbornih zvaničnika u svakoj od pojedinačnih država, a birači od-laze na svoje biračko mesto da bi popunili glasački listić. Upotrebom glasačkih listića garantuje se privatnost bira-ča prilikom odlučivanja. Listići takođe mogu biti popu-njeni 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 jedinstve-na pravila, a osnovna razlika jeste u ulozi i statusu birača koji nisu članovi ili simpatizeri partija. 2 U otvorenom si-stemu birači mogu da izaberu da li će učestvovati u izbo-ru 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/blo-gs/graphicdetail/2016/04/primary-season, (pristupljeno: 13. apri-la 2016.)


u državi koja ima otvoreni sistem. Kod zatvorenih siste-ma situacija je suprotna: samo birači koji su registrovani mogu glasati na preliminarnim izborima odnosne partije. Kombinovanje ova dva sistema nije uobičajeno, ali posto-ji mali broj država koji to praktikuje.

Drugi tip preliminarnog sistema su kokusi i oni se značajno razlikuju od preliminarnih izbora u više as-pekata. Kokuse možemo definisati kao lokalne i držav-ne sastanke koje u potpunosti organizuju i finansiraju političke partije partije. U njima učestvuju isključivo registrovani birači koji debatuju o potencijalnim kandi-datima. Stranke različito osmišljavaju kokuse, Republi-kanska partija je ove godine u Ajovi sprovela tajno glasa-nje, dok su se demokrate fizički okupljale oko kandidata kojeg podržavaju. Iz tačke gledišta učesnika, kokusi se razlikuju od preliminarnih izbora jer zahtevaju posve-ćenost i vreme koje većina birača radije ne bi ulagala. Dodatno, pravila su znatno komplikovanija od prelimi-narnih izbora na kojima birači jednostavno zaokruže ime na glasačkom listiću.3

Izvor: časopis “The Economist”

3 Isto


Uopšteno o delegatima i njihovoj ulozi

Iako su glasovi biračkog tela izuzetno važni tokom preliminarnih izbora, uloga birača je prvenstveno da usme-ravaju delegate. Za razliku od neposrednih izbora, birači u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama zapravo dodeljuju svoje glasove degatima koji zatim daju podršku određenom kadi-datu. Svaka država ima određen broj delegata, a obe partije po pravilu održavaju nacionalne konvencije na kojima dele-gati kolektivno odlučuju ko će predstavljati njihovu partiju na opštim izborima. Delegati bi trebalo da glasaju za kandi-date 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 iz-bora jeste način na koji funkcionišu preliminarni izbori i sistem dodeljivanja delegata kandidatima. U Republikan-skoj stranci pojedinačne države same biraju da li će dele-gati biti dodeljeni većinski (pobednik dobija sve ili većinu (bonus) delegata) ili proporcionalno.4

Nasuprot tome, Demokratska partija dozvoljava sa mo proporcionalno dodeljivanje. To znači da svaki kandi dat dobija broj delegata srazmerno procentu glasova koje je osvojio u datoj državi. Pored toga, u Demokratskoj stran-ci postoje i superdelegati koji glasaju potpuno nezavi sno od celokupnog izbornog procesa. Superdelegati su naj-češće članovi Kongresa, guverneri, bivši predsednici ili drugi istaknuti članovi partije. Njih ima 712 i mogu da glasaju za bilo kog demokratskog kandidata kojeg podr-žavaju. Institucija superdelegata je prilično kontroverzna među biračima budući da postoji mišljenje da oni dovo-de u pitanje demokratičnost procesa.5 Kandidatima Re-

4 Winner-take-all (WTA), winner-take-most (WTM), proportional repre-sentation (PR)

5 Ibid.


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“


Prednosti preliminarnih izbora

Osnovna prednost preliminarnih izbora jeste mo-gućnost da se aktivnosti kampanje fokusiraju na jedno područje što znači da kandidati ne moraju da budu po-litički prisutni u svim državama istovremeno. U pogledu običnih birača, ovakav sistem podstiče njihovu uključe-nost 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 nadme-tao na opštim izborima ispred jedne partije.

Mane preliminarnih izbora

Postoje i nedostaci ovakvog sistema predsedničkih izbora. Raspored preliminarnih izbora daje veliku koli-činu 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“


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 kandida-ta, čak i ako u njima živi ogroman broj birača. Ovaj si-stem stavlja fokus na pojedinačne kandidate više nego na partije i konkretne politike. Nedostatak unutarstra-načke kohezije može dovesti do personalizacije politike i skretanja pažnje sa ideja na lične živote i poslove kan-didata.

Izlaznost birača i zainteresovanost javnosti

Rezultati preliminarnih izbora pokazuju da je izla-znost birača na njima znatno niža nego na opštim izbo-rima što se delom pripisuje nezainteresovanosti i ne-dostatku 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 po-zicije 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 po-gledu procesa izbora predsednika.6

Izlaznost birača je generalno viša tokom preli-minarnih izbora u partiji koja ima većinu u Kongresu jer su veće šanse da upravo njihov kandidat pobedi na predsedničkim izborima. Neki birači primenjuju razli-čite strategije kako bi ojačali svoju partiju ili kandida-

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


ta, pre svega u državama sa otvorenim preliminarnim izborima.

Kako je politički sistem Sjedinjenih Američkih Dr-žava postajao sve više polarizovan na federalnom nivou, tako se i izlaznost na preliminarnim izborima smanjiva-la. 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 izbori-ma.7

Izvor: „The Atlantic“

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


Izvor: Istraživački centar „Pew“

III

NACIONALNE PARTIJSKE KONVENCIJE

45Nacionalne partijske konvencije

Konstantin Magdić*

NACIONALNE PARTIJSKE KONVENCIJE 2016. GODINE

S obzirom na značaj simbolike, partije pažljivo biraju vreme i mesto održavanja nacionalnih konvencija. Olim-pijske 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 konven-cija 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 Kliv-lend, u Ohaju, jednoj od najvažnijih država za izbor pred-sednika 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-

ty Conventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Con-gressional Research Service, 2015, p. 18.

2 Henry J. Gomez, Dates set for Republican National Conven-tion 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 Con-ventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Rese-arch Service, 2015, p. 18.

4 Ibidem.


države istorijski imaju presudan uticaj na izbor predsed-nika. 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 Pensil-vaniji, jedan od najvažnijih gradova u istoriji SAD-a.7 U Filadelfiji je održan Prvi Kontinentalni kongres i pot-pisana 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 organi-zovale 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, Ba-rak Obama održao je svoj čuveni govor “A More Perfect Union”10 koji je značajno doprineo njegovoj pobedi. Bo-gata turistička ponuda grada i konvencija demokrata

5 Michael Scherer, 5 Reasons to Be Delighted and Worried About a GOP Con-vention in Cleveland, dostupno na: http://time.com/2966830/2016-republican-convention-cleveland/, (pristupljeno 27. aprila 2016.)

6 Ibidem.7 The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Con-

ventions, 2016: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Rese-arch Service, 2015, p. 18.

8 Larry Olmsted, Why The Democratic National Convention Is Com-ing To Philadelphia, dostupno na: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2016/02/25/why-the-democratic-national-commit-tee-is-coming-to-philadelphia/#4f2fd9c16005, (pristupljeno 27. aprila 2016.)

9 Ibidem10 Larry Olmsted, Why The Democratic National Convention Is Com-

ing To Philadelphia, dostupno na: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2016/02/25/why-the-democratic-national-commit-


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 dis-kutuju 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 pre-nose 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 pod-setiti na važnost jedinstva partije i usmeriti ih da mirnim putem rešavaju sukobe.

Drugog dana, većina delegata mora da izglasa par-tijsku platformu. Platforma je politički plan za naredne četiri godine. U njoj se nalaze konkretni stavovi partije o ključni aktuelnim domaćim i spoljnopolitičkim pitanji-ma, kao i skup ideja za koje se partija zalaže. Uglavnom su pre konvencije već sva ključna pitanja usaglašena unu-tar 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 govor-nicu i predlažu kandidate za nominaciju – one koji su po-bedili na preliminarnim izborima u njihovoj državi. Kada

tee-is-coming-to-philadelphia/#4f2fd9c16005, (pristupljeno 27. aprila 2016.)


se završi proces nominovanja, predstavnici država pono-vo izlaze za govornicu i glasaju za jednog ili više kandi-data, 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 pred-sedničku nominaciju. Ustaljena je praksa da pred sednički kandidati pre početka konvencije predstave svog kandi-data za potpredsednika. Odabir kandidata za potpredsed-nika nije uopšte jednostavan zadatak. Istorijski gledano, jedna trećina, tačnije četrnaest predsednika, prethodno je obavljalo funkciju potpredsednika, zbog čega se sma-tra da je ova funkcija priprema za poziciju predsedni-ka. 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 ra-zlozi 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 izba-lansirale pozicije i partija ujedinila. Iskustvo obavljanja javne funkcije je jedan od ključnih faktora koje birači uzi-maju u obzir tokom kampanje.12 Ukoliko predsedničkom kandidatu nedostaje iskustva, on može za potpredsedni-

11 Nelson W. Polsby, Aaron Wildavsky, Steven E. Schier, David A. Hopkins, Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of Ameri-can Politics, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Mary-land, 2012, p. 144

12 Josh Clinton, Drew Engelhardt, John Lapinski, What Are Vot-ers Looking for in 2016 Presidential Candidates?, dostupno na: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/what-are-voters-


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 iza-brati 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 kandida-ta za potpredsednika i predsednika pred prepunom dvo-ranom 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.)


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 odr-žati 8. novembra. Republikanska stranka će svoju kon-venciju 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 tradi-cija da se konvencije najčešće iz praktičnih razloga održa-vaju 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 Republi-kansku nacionalnu konvenciju u julu biće akreditovano oko 15 hiljada novinara i samo su Olimpijske igre po tom kriterijumu ispred.1 Iz bezbednosnih razloga, ove godi-ne 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-on-new-credentialing-role-for-conventions-222017, (pristupljeno 20. aprila 2016.)


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 pre-ko interneta koje organizuju same stranke i drugi medi-ji. 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.


Vilijam Najt*3

PREGOVARAČKE NACIONALNE KONVENCIJE: DA LI MOŽE DA DOĐE DO

PREGOVARAČKE KONVENCIJE 2016?

Pre nego što se upustimo u analizu mogućnosti pre-govaračke konvencije, treba objasniti uslove pod kojima do nje dolazi. Pregovaračka konvencija se nameće kao opcija ukoliko nema jasnih favorita u jednoj ili obe partije, tač-nije, 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 pr-vog kruga glasanja. Mogućnost ovakve konvencije se naj-češće razmatra nakon „super utorka“ budući da se tada do-deljuje najveći broj delegata što utiče na pojavu favorita.

Pre nego što su preliminarni izbori postali deo pro-cedure, veliki broj predsedničkih izbora rešavan je upravo pregovaračkim konvencijama. Poslednji kandidat koji je na ovaj način osvojio nominaciju svoje partije, a zatim po-stao i predsednik SAD-a, bio je Frenklin D. Ruzvelt 1932. godine. Partije danas deluju preventivno u pogledu pre-govaračkih konvencija. Na predsedničkim izborima 2008. je u Demokratskoj stranci došlo do slične situacije kakvu

* [email protected]


imamo ove godine, uključujući čak i jednog istog kandida-ta. 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 nacio-nalne konvencije, postao svestan tih izgleda, uticao je na neopredeljene super-delegate da podrže bilo kojeg kandi-data 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, pred-sednički izbori 2016. su daleko od uobičajenih. Berni Sanders, samoproklamovani socijalista, i Donald Tramp, preduzetnik čije izjave nisu ni blizu političke korektno-sti, pokazali su se kao izuzetno popularni među biračima. Tramp je trenutno vodeći kandidat Republikanske par-tije i ima sve izglede za osvajanje nominacije. Sa druge strane, bez obzira na to što Hilari Klinton deluje nepobe-divo, 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 sva-kako nisu tradicionalni. Postoji mogućnost da liberali u ovim državama reaguju na Trampovo narušavanje njiho-vih 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 izgle-da za ovu godinu. Iako je Donald Tramp osvojio podrš-ku pozamašnog broja delegata, to i dalje nije dovoljno za osvajanje nominacije. Za druge kandidate, Teda Kruza i


Džona Kejsika, ne postoji matematička mogućnost osva-janja dovoljnog broja delegata za nominaciju, ali oni i da-lje ne odustaju od trke. Posledica toga jeste potencijalno oduzimanje delegata Trampu, a ukoliko se obrazac na-stavi 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 po-trebno 1,230 delegata kako bi osvojili nominaciju. Na pregovaračkoj nacionalnoj konvenciji održana su tri kru-ga glasanja, a magični broj za pobedu bio je 615.5 glaso-va. 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 kan-didatima. 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 go-tovo prepustilo nominaciju Stivensonu. U poređenju sa razvojem događaja 1952, teško je zamisliti da će Repu-blikanska partija biti otvorena za sličnu saradnju ukoliko ove godine dođe do pregovaračke nacionalne konvencije (časopis Tajm, 2016).

Literatura

Kamarck, Elaine. “What Is a Brokered Convention, and Are 1. We Going to Have One in 2016?” The Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution, 12 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.Prokop, Andrew. “The GOP’s Nuclear Option: How Trump Could 2. Be Denied the Nomination Even with a Majority.” Vox. Vox, 24 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.Rothman, Lily, and Heather Jones. “Confused about How Trump 3. Could Be Denied the Republican Nomination? Let 1952 Be Your Guide.” Time. Time, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

IV

KAMPANJE

57Kampanje

Vajat Amaral*4

KAMPANJE U PRELIMINARNIM IZBORIMA

Kampanje su ključni deo svakih preliminarnih izbo-ra. Predsednik SAD-a je najmoćnija osoba u zemlji, a prvi korak ka preuzimanju ove pozicije je osvajanje nomina-cije. Važnost kampanje leži u njenom presudnom utica-ju na ishod svih napora kandidata. Kampanje se plani-raju 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 kom-ponenti koje teže da uvećaju vidljivost kandidata i podrš-ku koju uživaju. U najvećem broju slučajeva, svaki publi-citet tokom preliminarne sezone je dobar. U ovom tekstu ću se baviti različitim aspektima preliminarnih kampa-nja 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 pe-deset različitih procesa u pojedinačnim državama pod krovnom federalnom kampanjom, uz kampanje u Por-toriku, Guamu i drugim teritorijama SAD. Konačno, za sve aktivnosti moraju biti obezbeđena sredstva, te su fi-

* [email protected]; [email protected]


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 ide-ološka stanovišta dovode do jasnih i konkretnih razlika, što nije slučaj u preliminarnoj sezoni. Zbog toga se velika pažnja posvećuje isticanju postojećih malih razlika izme-đu 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 distan-cirajući od konkurencije. Između ostalog, cilj svakog kan-didata je i da potkopa kredibilitet, ličnost i temelje vizije svojih protivnika. Stvarajući jasne podele, ovim metoda-ma lakše privlače pažnju na sebe. Prepoznatljivost je izu-zetno 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 nov-ca, kandidati nisu u mogućnosti da ispune nijedan od svo-jih ciljeva. Svaki momenat kampanje košta, od najmanjih sitnica poput bedževa, sve do luksuznih putovanja širom zemlje kako bi se kampanja vodila u svakoj od pojedinač-nih 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 uobi-čajeno, 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 do-nacija korporacija i sindikata pod zastavom Prvog aman-

59Kampanje

dmana. Rezultat toga je da danas ne postoji gornja gra-nica 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 po-jedinačnih 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 du-goročni podaci za preliminarne izbore nisu dostupni. Troškovi kampanja su u konstantnom porastu, a nji-hov zabeležen rast je čak veći od rasta prihoda, troško-va 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


olakšati prelaz na opšte izbore jer stvara infrastrukturu postavljanjem ključnih članova na važna mesta. Kam-panje imaju izuzetan značaj i vrše suštinski uticaj kako na kontekst izbora predsedničkih kandidata obe partije, tako i na kasniji ishod opštih izbora.

Literatura

Adams, B., & Settle, R. (1978). The Economic Theory of Regulation 1. and Public Financing of Presidential Elections. Journal of Political Economy , 86 (2).Fuller, J. (2014, April 3). 2. 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-hi-story-of-campaign-finance-reform-from-george-washington-to-shaun-mccutcheon/ Popkin, S. (2012). 3. The Candidate: What it Takes to Win – and Hold – the White House. New York: Oxford University Press.Scherer, M., Rebala, P., & Wilson, C. (2014, October 23). 4. The Incredible Rise in Campaign Spending. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from TIME Magazine: http://time.com/3534117/the-incredible-rise-in-campaign-spending/The Editorial Board. (2015, April 27). 5. How Super PACs Can Run Campaigns. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/opinion/how-su-per-pacs-can-run-campaigns.html

V

KANDIDATI

63Kandidati

Keli Melton*

HILARI KLINTON

Hilari Rodam Klinton (Hillary Diane Rodham Clin-ton) je najavila svoju drugu kandidaturu za predsednika u dvominutnom video snimku objavljenom 12. aprila 2015. godine. Kao član Demokratske Partije sa verovatno najve-ćim 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 Prav-ne 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 pre-davala 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 ener-getskih izvora, reforme krivičnog sistema, prevencije oružanog nasilja, imigracije, nacionalne bezbednosti i prava žena.2

* [email protected] http://www.britannica.com/biography/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton,

(pristupljeno 3. marta 2016) 2 Na sajtu Hillaryclinton.com *nisu predstavljena sva pitanja


Klimatske promene i energetski izvori

Program Hilari Klinton u ovoj oblasti ima za cilj in-staliranje 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, bolni-cama 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 mini-malnih kazni i ukidanja privatnih zatvora. Trenutno po-stoji problem sa bivšim zatvorenicima koji imaju teškoće prilikom resocijaliziacije nakon izlaska. Platforma Hila-ri 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 pobolj-šanje poverenja između policijskih snaga i građana kako bi se smanjio nivo nasilja.

Njena kampanja je usmerena i na sprovođenje ka-zni za nasilne zločine, a ne samo posedovanje marihu-ane koje je razlog izuzetno velikog broja hapšenja zbog narkotika. Hapšenje vezano za narkotike, inače, čini ve-ćinu ukupnih hapšenja u čitavim Sjedinjenim Država-ma. Klintonova se nada da će ove meri staviti tačku na masovna zatvaranja.

3 Isto

65Kandidati

Sprečavanje oružanog nasilja

U svetlu terorističkih napada u SAD-u kroz oruža-no 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 foku-sirala 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 Karo-lini 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 komplek-snu 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 imi-granata 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 promovisa-njem 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


da se zalaže za nuklearni sporazum sa Iranom, Klintono-va je izjavila da nikada neće dozvoliti da Iran stekne nu-klearno 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 unapre-đivanjem 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 Evro-pe od ruske nafte, istovremeno insistirajući na tome da Putin preuzme odgovornost za svoje poteze u cilju odvra-ćanja potencijalnih vojnih akcija Rusije u Evropi.4

Prava žena i jednake mogućnosti

Hilari Klinton je snažan zagovornik rodne ravnoprav-nosti i želi da, pre svega, obezbedi jednake plate ženama, a posebno ženama afroameričkog porekla. Planira da omogu-ći usvajanje Zakona o pravičnim platama (eng. Paycheck Fa-irness 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 osigura-vajućim agencijama svaki oblik diskriminacije žena.

4 Isto 5 Eng. Planned Parenthood, nevladina organizacija koja se bavi

istraživanjima i savetovanjem u oblasti kontracepcije, rađanja i re-produktivnog zdravlja (prim. prev.)

67Kandidati

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 poro-dice 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 izdrža-vao 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 Nju-jorku. 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. Upra-vo u srednjškolskim danima Berni je prvi put iskusio po-

* [email protected]** [email protected] Congress, SANDERS, Bernard, (1941 – ), Dostupno na: http://bi-

oguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s000033 (Pristu-pljeno: 19.03.2016)

2 Feelthebern, WHO IS BERNIE SANDERS?, Available from: http://feelthebern.org/who-is-bernie-sanders/ (Accessed: 19.03.2016)


litiku. U trci za predsednika učeničkog parlamenta je iz-gubio, 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 ob-razovanje.3

U Čikagu je postao aktivan borac za ljudska prava. Poznat je protest koji je organizovao u januaru 1962. go-dine. Studenti su seli ispred kancelarije Dr Džordža Bid-la, 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 San-ders 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 posta-ne 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.4 Dekol, BERNIE SANDERS LEADS 1962 SIT-IN,Bleak beauty blog,

Dostupno na: https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/ (Pristupljeno 19.03.2016)

5 Ibid.6 Nije bio pripadnik ni demokratske ni republikanske političke

partije.

69Kandidati

grešile.7 Boreći se za mesto u Senatu 2006. godine, San-ders se predstavio kao demokratski socijalista i tako pob-edio 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 mora-mo 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 ekonoms-kim 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 sma-

7 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-Sand-ers (Pristupljeno 20.03.2016)

11 InsideGov, Bernie Sanders – Issues, InsideGovhttp://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/35/Bernie-Sanders (Pristupljeno: 20. 03. 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 demo-kratske 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 pro-gram se dosta razlikuje od programa drugih kandidata. Naime, on pominje neophodnost reforme Vol strita, le-galizaciju 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“. Sedam de-setčetvorogodišnjak koji dolazi iz druge najmanje države u SAD i predstavlja se kao demokratski socijalista po mno-gima nije najbolji kandidat za nominaciju. Dodatno, San-ders je belac koji pokušava da bude predstavnik raznovrs-ne 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 Hi-lari Klinton.15

12 Sky, Bernie Sanders: Democratic Candidate Profile, Sky, 2016, Available from: http://news.sky.com/story/1632335/bernie-san-ders-democratic-candidate-profile (Pristupljeno: 20.03.2016)

13 Berniesanders, Reforming Wall Street,Berniesanders, Dostupno na: https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/ (Pristu-pljeno: 20.03.2016)

14 Berniesanders, On the Road: ‘A Future to Believe In’¸Berniesanders, 2015. https://berniesanders.com/on-the-road-a-future-to-belie ve- in/ (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-

71Kandidati

Program

Berni Sanders se ideološki identifikuje kao demo-kratski 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 prelimi-narnim 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 naj-bitnija pitanja SAD-a i da od toga kako se bude odgovori-lo na njih zavisi i budućnost građana Amerike.

Stubovi politike i pravci neophodnih promena za koje se zalaže Berni Sanders su: pitanje prihoda i eko-nomske nejednakosti, dostupnost u visokom obrazovanju i problem studentskih dugova (kredita), obnova demo-kratije kroz smanjenje upliva velikog novca u politiku, povećanje minimalne cene rada, suočavanje sa klimat-skim promenama, imigrantska politika, borba protiv ra-sne 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 je-dan 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. Da-nas, 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 stopi-

lary-really-that-much-more-electable-than-bernie/ (Pristupljeno: 20.03.2016)

16 www.berniesanders.com/issues (Pristupljeno: 20.03.2016)


ranje izvoza profita i radnih mesta iz Amerike od stra-ne 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 zdrav-stvene zaštite, tzv „single-payer“ sistem, na osnovu koga će svakom poreskom obvezniku biti dostupna zdravstve-na zaštita u skladu sa visinom prihoda. „Zdravstvena za-štita kao pravo, a ne privilegija.“ Smatra i da cene le-kova 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 dostojan-stven život.19

Zalaže se za donošenje novih zakona kojima će se urediti poslovanje velikih finansijskih institucija i bana-ka, 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 Imigrant-ska 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 unu-tar SAD-a.21 Jedna od najbitnijih reformi za koju se zala-

17 ibid.18 ibid.19 ibid.20 ibid.21 ibid.

73Kandidati

že, a koja je u dobroj meri dovela do velike podrške Berniju Sandersu, pre svega od mladih, jeste pristup obrazova-nju. Prema Sandersu, cene školarine na javnim koled-žima 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 pro-blem studentskih dugova, koji danas u velikoj meri opte-rećuju 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 pred-sedničkom kandidatu mora da bude poslednja opcija, pre toga treba maksimalno iskoristiti diplomatske i druge ak-tivnosti kako bi problemi bili rešeni.23

Deo Sandersove političke ponude je i reforma siste-ma zatvora budući da su danas zatvori u Americi prepu-njeni, ne radi se dovoljno na resocijalizaciji i u njima, na primer, ima više ljudi u zatvorima nego u Kini, najmnogo-ljudnijoj 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 fede-ralnom nivou, i ovo je sigurno jedan od razloga zbog kojeg

22 ibid.23 ibid.24 ibid.


ima podršku od one grupe mladih koji su liberalnije ori-jentisani.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 te-žini problema. U vezi sa ovim problemom, Berni Sanders u velikoj meri kritikuje Republikance za koje kaže da brane profite kompanija koje su zagađivači, umesto ži-votne sredine. Treba investirati u čistu i održivu energiju, izvršiti promene u elektro i transportnoj infrastrukturi i predvoditi međunarodnu zajednicu u borbi sa klimat-skim promenama i sve to u cilju preventivnog rešavanja problema.26

Kampanja

Berni Sanders je započeo svoju kampanju neformal-nom 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. Ka-snije, zbog imigrantske politike i zalaganja za povećanje minimalne cene rada, raste podrška i od Hispanoamerika-naca. Sanders u svojoj kampanji i nastupima stavlja u prvi plan ono što smatra da su najveći problemi koji muče sta-novništvo SAD-a a koji se i navode u njegovom programu.

On u svojoj kampanji kritikuje stanovišta mnogih Republikanaca po pitanju redukcije socijalnog osigura-nja, odnosa prema klimatskim promenama, abortusu, minimalnoj ceni rada i imigrantima. Najviše rasprava i političkih sukoba sa kandidatima iz Republikanske parti-je je imao sa vodećim Donaldom Trampom. Takođe, iako

25 ibid.26 ibid.

75Kandidati

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 pita-njima bile veoma žustre, što je i logično.

Debate

Na početku debata unutar Demokratske partije bilo je svega tri kandidata, znatno manje u odnosu na preten-dente na nominaciju u Republikanskoj partiji. Međutim, već nakon kokusa u Ajovi, Brajan O’Mali koji je imao veo-ma 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 slu-čajeva 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 nastu-pima na debatama, to je nedefinisana i nejasna spoljna politika za koju se zalaže a koju je tek kasnije nešto pre-ciznije 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-


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 do-nacije, 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 do-nacija 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.

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

77Kandidati

Milan Ranković* i Slobodan Brkić**

DONALD TRAMP

Prema podacima sa njegovog zvaničnog vebsajta, „Donald Dž. Tramp je epitom američke priče o uspe-hu, on konstantno podiže standarde uspešnosti i proši-ruje 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 naj-jači 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 go-dine prebacio se na Univerzitet u Pensilvaniji, Poslovnu školu Vorton.

Diplomirao je 1968. godine u oblasti ekonomije i nekretnina.3 Ima svoj sopstveni brend, a „Organizaci-ja 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/, pris-

tupljeno: 8.3.20152 Donald J. Trump, Crippled America: How to make America great

again, Threshold editions, 2015, p.673 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.)


poznatijih svetskih projekata. Organizacija Tramp je po-znata 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 veliči-na 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 na-vodi još i da je Trampov uspon „pre svega posledica gneva republikanskog elektorata i konzervativne „tihe većine“ prema politici federalne vlade“.7 Profesor Džon Mekmar-tri (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. Za-kuvava 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 Pen-tagona, preko najavljenog ukidanja korporativnih dona-cija usmerenih ka Kongresu, količine državnog novca koji bi veliki korporativni lobiji mogli da izgube ako on posta-ne 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-trump-biography-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, (pristu-pljeno 6.4.2016.)

7 Isto

79Kandidati

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 otvo-reno vređa ostale moćnike“.9

U zaključku o ovom predsedničkom kandidatu po-stavićemo 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 od-govornost. 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 labu-dova i trenutno je teško predvideti ishod kako prelimi-narnih, tako i opštih predsedničkih izbora.

8 Prof. John McMurtry, Joining the dots: Why the establishment hates Donald Trump, Globalresearch, 5.4.2016, http://www.globalre-search.ca/joining-the-dots-why-the-establishment-hates-donald-trump/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-Mon-tana-u-Beloj-kuci, (pristupljeno 7.4.2016.)

10 Stephen Lendman, Trump’s first 100 days as president, Global re-search, 3.4.2016, http://www.globalresearch.ca/trumps-first-100-days-as-president/5518253, (pristupljeno 6.4.2016.)


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 pio-nirima na polju informatike. Rafael Kruz je 1957. bio pri-nuđen 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 totalitar-nog režima, umeo je da ceni veličinu slobodarskih insti-tucija 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 Ra-faelu snažna verska ubeđenja. On često ističe značaj hri-šćanstva, 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 stra-ne “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] https://www.tedcruz.org/about/, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)

81Kandidati

branioca. Na toj poziciji ostaje sve do 2013. kada, pobe-divši Pola Sedlera, postaje senator.

Kruz se pozicionira kao socijalno konzervativan po-litičar. 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 po-rez na dobit od 16%. Rezultat ove promene bilo bi ozbilj-no preispitivanje postojećeg sistema penzionog osigura-nja kao i zdravstvene zaštite. Zalaže se za smanjenje moći FED-a (Federalnog sistema rezervi), čiju pogrešnu politi-ku vidi kao osnovni uzrok ekonomske krize iz 2008.

Karakteriše ga tvrda spoljna politika. Kao senator protivio se sporazumu s Iranom, zalaže se za oštriju poli-tiku prema Rusiji i Kini. Protivio se intervenciji u Libiji, kao i poduhvatima “izgradnje nacije” u Iraku i Avgani-stanu.

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 Republi-kanskoj 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 hrišćan-skih vrednosti, za koje se može reći da predstavljaju nei-zostavni deo njegovog pristupa politici i konzervativnog ideološkog spektra kome pripada.

2 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/06/27/Ted-Cruz-Gay- marriage-ruling-makes-one-of-darkest-days-in-US-history/9301435429916/, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 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 republika-naca, 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 dru-gim 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 mno-gim drugim političkim linijama. Kako je podrška Trampu rasla, tako je i trka između njih dvojice postajala sve di-namičnija. Iako je i Džon Kejsik ostao u trci kao treći po broju osvojenih delegata, rasprave između Kruza i Tram-pa 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 dona-cija. 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

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

83Kandidati

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 Maja-miju. Svoju političku karijeru ovaj republikanac započeo je 1998. godine kada je izabran za gradskog komesara Za-padnog Majamija. Naredne godine uspeo je da se izbori za mandat kongresmena u Predstavničkom domu Flori-de. 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 godi-na 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 Mar-ko Rubio svakako se može ideološki smestiti na desnom polu, to jest na poziciji konzervativizma. Široka lepeza koja proističe iz njegove ideološke opredeljenosti je vero-vatno najznačajniji i najbitni činilac u njegovom politič-

* [email protected]** [email protected] www.biography.com, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 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 se-natora. 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 konzerva-tivnih reformi i ograničenja vlasti. Bori se protiv politike establišmenta koja se zalaže za „veliku Vladu“, osporava „Obamacare“ i osporava budžet koji se odnosi na pove-ćanje 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 zago-vornik sankcija protiv Irana u vezi sa nuklearnim oružjem. Jasno je da je ovaj dijapazon ideja kompatibilan sa njego-vim konzervativnim opredeljenjem.

Program

Marko Rubio se od 15. marta ne nalazi u trci za no-minaciju Republikanske partije na izborima 2016. godi-ne.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.)3 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.)

85Kandidati

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 „li-beralniji“ Donald Tramp i Džon Kejsik.4

Glavno pitanje za Rubija bilo je pitanje porodice. Po njemu, sve pozitivne vrednosti u američkom društvu do-laze iz porodičnog gnezda. Neophodno je prepoznati ulo-gu koju igra brak kao temelj odbrane osnovnih vrednosti i zaštititi ga raznim programima koji bi olakšali nerazve-denim roditeljima da se izbave iz siromaštva. Takođe, Rubio je želeo da pomogne farmerima uklanjajući razno-razne 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 radnici-ma u Novoj američkoj ekonomiji.5

Kampanja

Pošto je 13. aprila 2015. godine obnarodovao svo-ju 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, (Pristu-pljeno 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://mar-corubio.com, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)


za Varena Tompkinsa smatra da je imao ogroman uticaj na kampanju.8

Teroristički napadi koji su se desili u Parizu novem-bra 2015. godine doprineli su ubrzavanju Rubiove kam-panje 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 re-alne 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 proce-nat iza drugoplasiranog Donalda Trampa.11 Ipak, momen-tum nije uspeo da bude očuvan i Rubio je ostvario razo-čaravajuće rezultate u Nju Hempširu osvojivši tek peto

8 Ballotpedia, Marco Rubio presidential campaign key staff and advi-sors, 2016, Ballotpedia, Dostupno na: https://ballotpedia.org/Mar-co_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-mark-a-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-paris-terrorist-attacks-a-positive-development-americans.html, (Pristu-pljeno 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.)

87Kandidati

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 republikans-ke 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 iz-bora, napad koji je znatno umanjio njegove šanse, a ver-ovatno i onemogućio da Rubio bude nominovan, došao je od Krisa Kristija. Naime, Kristi je napomenuo da Ru-bio 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 af-ter 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-have-won-the-first-republican-debate, (Pristupljeno 7. juna 2016.)


to uspeo da dokaže navodeći Rubia da ponavlja neko-liko 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 odu-stao) 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 do-lara.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-christie-marco-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-2016-campaign-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

91Unutrašnje podele

Teodora Marković* i Rajan Bartli**


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 izabe-re guvernera koji nije ni Demokrata ni Republikanac.“1 Ove činjenice nam govore da Demokratska i Republi-kanska partija dominiraju političkim sistemom Sjedi-njenih Američkih Država, a samim tim i predsedničkim

* [email protected]** [email protected] USA ELECTIONS in Brief. BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFOR-

MATION PROGRAMS U.S. Department of State


izborima. Iako je teoretski moguće da na izborima po-bedi 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 spe-cifično kod američkih predsedničkih izbora jeste proces kroz koji obe partije prolaze kako bi nominovale kandi-data za generalne izbore. Ovi – preliminarni izbori – su i sami jedna vrsta izbornog procesa. Sve do sredine juna u izbornoj godini, svaka od pojedinačnih država orga-nizuje preliminarne izbore tokom kojih građani glasaju za nekog od kandidata koji dolaze iz iste stranke, a ko-načni ishod jeste nominovanje predsedničkog kandidata koji će predstavljati celu partiju na opštim izborima. To znači da je preliminarna kampanja usmerena na nomi-novanje jednako važna kao i opšta predsednička kam-panja. 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 par-tije ostvarivale na predsedničkim izborima kroz istoriju – drugim rečima, listu predsednika koje su pojedinačne partije iznedrile.

93Unutrašnje podeleTa

bela

1 –

Unu

tarp

arti

jske

pod

ele

Part

ijaFr

akci

jaO

snov

ne id

eje

Ista

knut

i poj

edin

ci

Dem

okra

tska

Nap

redn

a st

ruja

Uni

verz

alna

zdr

avst

vena

zaš

tita,

bor

ba p

rotiv

gl

obal

nog

zagr

evan

ja, r

efor

me

part

ijaBe

rni S

ande

rs

Dem

okra

tska

Libe

rali

Snaž

na i

aktiv

na v

lada

, slo

bodn

a tr

govi

na, g

ra-

đans

ke sl

obod

e, m

anje

mili

taris

tička

Nen

si P

elos

i

Dem

okra

tska

Cent

risti

Soci

jaln

i lib

eral

izam

, eko

nom

ski k

onze

rvat

ivi-

zam

, viš

e m

ilita

ristič

ka, m

anji

drža

vni t

rošk

ovi

Hila

ri Kl

into

n

Repu

blik

ansk

aEs

tabl

išm

ent

Nag

lasa

k na

kla

sičn

im k

onze

rvat

ivni

m

vred

nost

ima

Pol R

ajan

, Džo

n Bo

ner,

Mit

Rom

ni, D

žeb

Buš

Repu

blik

ansk

aEv

anđe

listi

Relig

ijske

slob

ode

Maj

k H

akab

i

Repu

blik

ansk

aPo

kret

Čaj

anka

Niž

i por

ezi,

man

ja d

ržav

na p

otro

šnja

Ted

Kruz

, Mar

ko R

ubio

Repu

blik

ansk

aLi

bert

arija

nci

Slob

odno

trži

šte,

min

imal

na d

ržav

aRe

nd P

ol


Tabela 2 – Predsednici SAD-a2

Br. Predsednik Partija Mandat

1 Džordž Vašington Nestranačka ličnost 1789-1797

2 Džon Adams Federalistička 1797-1801

3 Tomas Džeferson Demokratsko-republikanska 1801-1809

4 Džejms Medison Demokratsko-republikanska 1809-1817

5 Džejms Monro Demokratsko-republikanska 1817-1825

6 Džon Kvinsi Adams Demokratsko-republikanska 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

2 Izvor :https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/Presidents (Pristuplje-no 11. aprila 2016)


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-


Teodora Marković*1

DEMOKRATSKA PARTIJA

Kako je nastala Demokratska partija?

Korene Demokratske partije nalazimo u grupi oku-pljenoj 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 tu-mačenja Ustava u pogledu toga ko treba da bude u vladi – Federalisti su imali elitistički, a Demokratski republi-kanci 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 izve-sne promene, održi do danas. Demokratska partija je do-nela neke bitne zakone poput Devetnaestog amandmana na Ustav, Zakona o socijalnim pravima, Zakona o građan-skim pravima i Zakon o pristupačnoj zdravstvenoj zašti-ti (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]


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, iza-brana 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 eko-nomije, obezbeđivanje univerzalne zdravstvene zaštite itd., ili jednostavnije formulisano, zastupanje snažne administracije sa širokom „jurisdikcijom“ – ove odlike mogu biti pripisane Demokratama. Pored ostalih uvere-nja, oni se zalažu: za pravo na abortus, za progresivno oporezivanje, protiv ograničenja imigracije, protiv smrt-ne 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: Pro-gresivna (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)


Unutarpartijske frakcije: progresivna, liberalna i centristička

„Frakcija Progresivne Demokrate Amerike osnovana je 2004. godine kako bi transformisala Demokratsku par-tiju i našu zemlju.“3

„Progresivne Demokrate Amerike vodi napredna vi-zija obnovljene nacije, potpuno integrisane u zajednicu nacija i naroda, koja poštuje vladavinu prava na svojoj te-ritoriji 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, sa-mim tim, poznata po zagovaranju socijalne i ekonomske jednakosti, kao i principa neposredne demokratije. Pita-nja 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 na-lazite. U Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, biti liberal generalno podrazumeva podršku visokoj državnoj po-trošnji, često za različite socijalne programe poput zdrav-stvene 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, (Pristuplje-no 11. aprila 2016.)


njihove moći u organizovanju, distribuciji i redistribuciji u cilju poboljšavanja života građana.

Razvoj ovih ideja ubrzan je dolaskom Velike depresi-je iz 1929. godine.5 Liberalne ekonomske politike namet-nule su se kao rešenje velikog problema i održale su se, narednih pola veka, kao neupitan način vođenja ekonom-skog 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 nepotreb-no 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 do-vodi 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 frakci-ja 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 osno-vom u idejama socijalnog liberalizma i ekonomskog kon-zervativizma. Zagovaraju veću upotrebu vojne sile, kao i smanjivanje državne potrošnje u programima socijalne zaštite. Ova druga stavka je, kako se pokazalo, bila ključ-na 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)6 Džon Majnard Kejnz (1883-1946) bio je britanski ekonomista, naj-

poznatiji po doprinosu u polju makroekonomije.


Literatura:

http://www.democrats.org1. http://www.pdamerica.org2. https://www.whitehouse.gov3. Meyers, William P. 2004. 4. A Brief History of the Democratic PartyUSA ELECTIONS in Brief5. . BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS U.S. Department of State


Rajan Bartli*1

REPUBLIKANSKA PARTIJA

Kako je nastala Republikanska partija?

Partija Vigovaca (Whig Party) se raspala 1854. godi-ne, 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 stva-rali 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 nji-ma. 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 Repu-blikanska partija su očuvanje tradicionalnih američkih vrednosti, primena postojećih zakona, poštovanje Usta-va i zagovaranje klasičnog slobodnog tržišta. U pogledu nacionalne bezbednosti, a naročito nakon terorističkih



napada 11. septembra 2001, zalažu se za snažnu vojsku uz funkcionalnu graničnu kontrolu. Danas, 2016. godi-ne, 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 stra-načke doktrine, svakako jeste establišment. Sa ideologi-jom koja se vremenom menjala, današnji establišment „Velike stare partije“2 vidi svog bivšeg predsednika Ro-nalda Regana kao uporište i epitom ove republikanske struje. Kandidati ove frakcije naglašavaju klasične kon-zervativne vrednosti i obično imaju sličnu ideologiju kao i stranačka baza u datom periodu.

Evanđelisti, poput ostalih religijskih grupa u Ame-rici, obično glasaju za Republikance usled njihovog in-sistiranja 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 „Po-kret 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, ve-ruju 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 smanji-vanje poreza.

Iako libertarijanci imaju posebnu stranku u SAD-u, politički sistem kojim dominiraju dve najveće partije re-zultirao 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)


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:

h6. ttps://gop.com/principles-for-american-renewal/h7. ttp://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded


Rajan Bartli*


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 li-nijama podela koje imaju ogroman uticaj na izbor kan-didata koji će se takmičiti sa predstavnikom Demokrata. Ideja modernog konzervativizma više nije dovoljno jaka da okupi i ujedini sve libertarijance, evanđeliste, pobor-nike Pokreta čajanke i ostale fiskalne konzervativce na-suprot 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 esta-blišmentu.

U proleće 2015. godine, većina Republikanaca bi na pitanje „kako se osećate povodom predstojećih izbora sle-deće godine?“ odgovorila da su uzbuđeni zbog lagane po-bede nad jedinim rivalom, bivšim državnim sekretarom Hilari Klinton. Mnogi su bili spremni da podrže preura-njeno prognozirane favorite establišmenta, Džeba Buša, bivšeg guvernera Floride, ili Marka Rubija, senatora sa

* E-mail: [email protected] Trumped – aluzija na republikanskog kandidata za predsednika

Donalda Trampa, (prim.prev.)


Floride. Međutim, da im je u isto vreme postavljeno pita-nje o oceni delovanja republikanskog Kongresa, većina bi bila nezadovoljna načinom na kojim ih partija predstav-lja 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 republikan-sku predsedničku nominaciju.

Jednog vrelog letnjeg jutra u Njujorku, poznati po-slovni 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 po-znat kao čovek koji je zauvek uzdrmao američku politi-ku. Okrenuvši novi list u svom uspešnom životu, gospo-din 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 odje-ka i da ga narod prihvata, što su pokazali rezultati prvih anketa koje su ga stavile na prvo mesto širom SAD-a. Go-tovo odmah su birači razočarani establišmentom pohrlili ka Trampu oduševljeni činjenicom da njega ne kontrolišu finansijski donatori kampanja, da je dokazani preduzet-nik 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.)


Iako su mnogi prihvatali Trampove populističke po-ruke, veliki broj tradicionalnih republikanskih birača vi-deo 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 suprot-stavljanju političkoj korektnosti. Birači koji su bili fokusi-rani na pobedu na opštim izborima protiv Hilari Klinton, a ne samo preliminarnu protiv Trampa i ostalih republi-kanskih kandidata, videli su šansu u Karsonu, Amerikan-cu afričkog porekla koji bi mogao da privuče afro-američ-ke glasove i koji pritom ima inspirativnu životnu priču o putu ka uspehu. Na Benovu nesreću, njegov blag tempe-rament i nedostatak harizme izbacio ga je iz takmičenja u kojem mediji favorizuju kontroverze i dinamičnost.

Na samom početku, Tramp i Karson su zajedno uzi-mali oko 50% glasova na anketama, što znači da je pre-ostalih 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 de-sničarska kampanja imala je za cilj distanciranje od dru-gih karijernih političara. To odvajanje je išlo u oba sme-ra – 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 bu-dući da su ga birači percipirali kao reformatora partije, neprijatelja i autsajdera trenutnom zatvorenom stranač-kom klubu.

Možda najveći protivnik establišmenta, a ujedno i najviše zanemareni kandidat, bio je senator Kentakija


Rend Pol. Obrazovan na Univerzitetu Djuk, oftalmolog koji je ušao u politiku dolazi iz američke libertarijanske porodice (njegov otac, Ron Pol, učestvovao je u predsed-ničkoj trci 2008. i 2012. godine), ali je zaključio da će, iako je Libertarijanac, imati veće šanse ukoliko učestvu-je u izborima za republikansku nominaciju. Budući da republikansko biračko telo sve više podržava društvena pitanja poput legalizacije marihuane, abortusa i pra-va homoseksualaca, Rend Pol bio je rani favorit mladih glasača koji su tražili alternativu Hilari Klinton i samo-proklamovanom 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 stro-go pridržavanje Ustava privlačiti širu bazu sastavljenu od studenata i dugogodišnjih libertarijanaca, imajući u vidu da veliki broj Republikanaca postaje socijalno libe-ralniji uz održavanje fiskalnog konzervativizma. Ukoliko se rascepi u državi prodube i Demokrate počnu da usva-jaju popularne socijalističke pozicije, jedina šansa Repu-blikanske partije biće napuštanje krajnje desnih stavova koje trenutno zastupa i okretanje ideologiji bliskoj Rendu Polu. Da li će „Velika stara partija“ ubuduće okupljati lju-de 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 parti-je u desno i time proširuju razdor između progresivnih Demokrata i konzervativnih Republikanaca. Zastupaju-ći 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 obla-stima. Na njihovu nesreću, velika većina američke gene-


racije milenijalaca se, nezavisno od članstva i simpatizer-stva 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 „diskrimi-natornim, staromodnim, zastarelim, netoleratnim bigoti-ma.“ Napuštajući navedene stavove, Republikanci bi mo-gli da stave naglasak na svoj liberalni ekonomski program i da ga suprotstave rastućim intervencionističkim i socija-lističkim ekonomskim elementima Demokratske partije. Međutim, socijalni konzervativci odlažu ekonomske ra-sprave, 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 Karso-nu. 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 pogle-du spoljne politike. Doba neokonzervativne dominacije je završeno. Retorika se okrenula od pretežno intervenci-onističke ka velikom broju nekonzistentnih i raznolikih stavova. Dok „ratni jastrebovi“3 imaju svoje predstavnike u uticajnim članovima poput senatora Teda Kruza, Mar-ka Rubija i Lindzija Grejema, većina kandidata zastupa lepezu različitih stavova. Rend Pol, najveći pobornik izo-lacionističke 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.


Asadu uz istovremene napade na Islamsku državu u Ira-ku i Siriji (ISIS). Ted Kruz, međutim, smatra da je neop-hodno potpuno uništiti ISIS svim mogućim sredstvima. „Tramplikanci“4, čiju spoljnu politiku možemo definisati kao zavisnu od pojedinačnog slučaja, zastupaju uništava-nje 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, „Tram-plikanci“ su NATO-skeptici i dovode u pitanje ulogu Sje-dinjenih Američkih Država u zaštiti velikog broja zemalja širom sveta u zamenu za malu ekonomsku pomoć. S dru-ge strane, Ted Kruz insistira na uništenju ISIS-a, pojača-nju 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)



VII

KAKO ĆE ISHOD IZBORA UTICATI NA ZAPADNI

BALKAN I SRBIJU?


113Kako će ishod izbora uticati na Zapadni Balkan i Srbiju?

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 in-tegritet i bezbednost bitniji od osvajanja političkih bodova.

Kada je reč o doktrini i spoljnopolitičkim stavovima Bernija Sandersa, jedno je sigurno: on vodi računa o gra-nici i prelazu između domaćeg i međunarodnog i između politike i ekonomije.1 Imajući u vidu američku spoljno-političku istoriju, on zaključuje da Sjedinjene Američke Države ne mogu sebi da priušte još jednog lidera čije bi odluke u međunarodnoj areni imale loše dugoročne po-sledice po samu državu. Dodatne nestabilnosti i nepri-jateljstva prema SAD-u bi otežale ostvarivanje njihovih ciljeva.2 Bernijev stav o Islamskoj državi jeste da se tre-nutna 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] http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/articles/2016-

02-29/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-doctrine-actually-makes-a-lot-of-sense, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.)

2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.


zuju da Sanders ima prilično realistične poglede na ame-ričku 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 stavovi-ma 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 Ame-ričke 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 Ameri-ku, već i na čitav svet. Pokazao je da osnovni ekonomski principi američkog društva nisu neprikosnoveni i nedo-dirljivi i da Amerika mora da ima razumevanja za različi-te modele socioekonomskog razvoja u drugim zemljama. Kada je reč o Balkanu, konkretno o Srbiji, Bernijevi sta-vovi ulivaju nadu u mogućnost promene pristupa. Ipak, Sanders je daleko od mirotvorca. Podržao je upotrebu vojne sile na Balkanu za vreme Klintonove administra-cije, 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.5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-fore-

ign-policy-realist/2016/03/08/c7f3422e-e48a-11e5-a6f3-21ccd-bc5f74e_story.html, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.)

6 Ibid.7 Ibid.


mali, on je uložio značajan napor da izmeni američku spoljnopolitičku perspektivu, tako da ostaje nada da će neki od njegovih zaključaka dospeti do platforme budu-ćeg predsednika SAD-a.

Hilari Klinton kao predsednik

Kada je reč o spoljnoj politici i razlikama između dve glavne partije, Demokrate su tradicionalno posvećeni-je 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 mo-menta 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 naglasi-ti 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 pominja-la 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 name-tanje sankcija Iranu.9

U kontekstu opštih spoljnopolitičkih stavova, „Od-brana Amerike i naših temeljnih vrednosti je jedan od stu-

8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/10/hillary-cant-name-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.)


bova kampanje Hilari Klinton. Kada Amerika vodi princi-pima 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 tero-rizma, istovremeno težeći da zaštiti ljudska prava i demo-kratiju 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 bude-mo uspešni, moramo da vodimo.“12

Imajući u vidu opštu svetsku preokupiranost izbe-gličkom krizom, krizom u Ukrajini, iranskim nuklearnim sporazumom i Islamskom državom u Iraku i Siriji, Bal-kan ni posredno nije bio u centru pažnje Hilari Klinton. Ovo zvuči iznenađujuće u svetlu njene istorije u ovom re-gionu. 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 sekreta-ra, 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/, (Pristu- pljeno 17. aprila 2016.)

11 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/, (Pristu-pljeno 17. aprila 2016.)

12 http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Poli-cy.htm, (Pristupljeno 17. aprila 2016.)


predstavnicom EU za spoljnu politiku i bezbednost Ke-trin Ešton. Ovom prilikom je ponovo pomenula nedovr-šene 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 Beogra-da. 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 čita-vom Balkanu. Njihova podrška kreće se od davanja imena ulicama, preko dizanja statua Bilu Klintonu na trgovima, do otvorenog podržavanja i skupljanja sredstava za pred-sedničku kampanju Hilari Klinton.14

Ono što je sigurno u vezi sa njenim spoljnopoli-tičkim 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 aktu-elna izbeglička kriza, kao i teroristički napadi u Evropi, ponovo usmeriti njenu pažnju na Balkan. Poznato je da je Balkan preplavljen talasom migranata koji mahom do-laze 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 Metohi-je otišao na Srednji istok da se bori na strani Islamske države. Trenutni nemiri i politička nestabilnost u Make-doniji 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-offi-cials-attend-to-unfinished-business-in-the-Balkans/, (Pristuplje-no 17. aprila 2016.)

14 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/albanians-loyal-to-hi-llary-clinton-presidential-race-04-18-2016, (Pristupljeno 17. apri-la 2016.)


predsednik, prilično je izvesno da ćemo biti svedoci veli-kog 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, in-tegracije migranata, ekonomije i procesa proširivanja, a Rusija ponovo „pokazuje zube“, teško da bi Hilari dozvo-lila nastanak vakuuma na Balkanu.


Marko Despotović*

KAKO ĆE DOLAZAK NOVOG PREDSEDNIKA UTICATI NA

AMERIČKU SPOLJNU POLITIKU PREMA ZAPADNOM BALKANU?

Politički sistem Sjedinjenih Američkih Država ka-rakterističan 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 drža-ve, 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 veći-nom preglasati)“.1

Kada je reč o subjektima koji kreiraju spoljnu politi-ku SAD, glavnu ulogu imaju predsednik i Kongres. Ipak, nakon Drugog svetskog rata, predsednik je taj koji domi-nira u spoljnopolitičkom odlučivanju. Savet za nacional-nu bezbednost predstavlja instituciju koja ima značajnu ulogu u samom procesu kreiranja spoljne politike SAD. Pored predsednika, u okviru Saveta nalaze se i potpred-sednik, državni sekretar, sekretar finansija, sekretar od-brane i savetnik za nacionalnu bezbednost. Takođe, tu je i načelnik Združenog generalštaba vojske SAD, koji je

* [email protected] Ivo Visković, Između zavere i birokratskog haosa – kako se stvara

spoljna politika SAD, Anagraf, Beograd, 2007, str. 75.


glavni vojni savetnik u Savetu za nacionalnu bezbednost. Pored njega, tu je i direktor obaveštajnih službi.2 Ukrat-ko, ove osobe predstavljaju „glavni mozak“ koji kreira spoljnu politiku SAD i oni imaju značajan uticaj na dono-šenje odluka predsednika SAD. Iako su u tekstu već po-menuti 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 jed-nom 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 poli-tika već ima određen pravac delovanja. Iz tog razloga, do-lazak 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 Zapad-ni 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 Ame-ričke 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)


Donald Tramp

Donald Tramp važi za kandidata koji bi uneo odre-đene 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 voj-nim intervencijama. Tramp je na određen način kritiko-vao 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 Bal-kana. 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 bom-bardovanja Islamske države. Činjenica je da trenutno zateg-nuti 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 poli-tiku 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 regi-onalna stabilnost i promocija nezavisnosti Kosova, najvero-vatnije bi ostali nepromenjeni i u narednom periodu.

THE HANDBOOK OF THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

2016

125Foreword

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 Politi-cal 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 ac-tivities related to the topic. Preparations for the Hand-book began in February 2016 and are a result of coopera-tion between students from Clemson University in South Carolina (United States of America) and from the Fac-ulty of Political Sciences University of Belgrade (Serbia). Namely, a group of seven Clemson students stayed in Bel-grade 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 genera-tion 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 Clem-son (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 Mis-cevic, Maja Kovacevic and Ivan Vujacic, Clemson students also had a class “Serbian Culture and History” that con-sisted 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 coop-eration, and of the need to bring American presidential elections closer to the interested public – primarily stu-dents. The pattern that was used in this project partially followed the structure given in the U. S. Congressional Research Service publications regarding the presiden-tial 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 read-ers 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 undergradu-ate studies of international politics at the Faculty of Po-litical 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 Questi-ons, Congressional Research Service, Washington D. C., December 30 2015, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42533.pdf, (Acce-ssed on: January 20th 2016)

127Foreword

mentioned cooperation with Clemson University, and we have Professors Vladimir Matic and Jeff Peake, the Chair of the Political Science Department at Clemson Univer-sity, 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: Kath-erine 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 Sina-novic and Mijat Kostic (Republic of Serbia). The United States Embassy in Serbia and the Balkan Trust for Democ-racy 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 pres-idential elections in years to come.

In Belgrade Prof. dr Dragan R. Simić, on October 12th 2016 mr Dragan Živojinović,

MA Stevan Nedeljković

I

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

131Background and Context

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 con-sidered 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 de-tailed 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 an-nouncements of running for office. At this time, speech-es, 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 sup-port of other delegates from their party who will hope-fully back their nomination at the national party conven-

* [email protected]** [email protected] http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=104,

(accessed on: March 13th, 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 eli-gible 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 nomina-tion. Primaries are similar to classic elections where par-ticipants go to local polling stations and vote for their preferred candidate. Caucuses tend to be more deliber-ate 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 vari-ous 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 Na-tional 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 cam-paigns, nominating conventions are largely ceremonial.3 The 47th Democratic National Convention will be host-

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

3 Ibid.


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 Conven-tions, candidates need to get the delegates’ support, so certain days in the primaries, which are graphically pre-sented 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 pop-ulation, proportion of that state’s Congressional repre-sentatives 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 Conven-tions, nominees for both President and Vice President de-liver 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 vot-ing 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-proce-ss/p37522, (accessed on: March 13th, 2016)

6 https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundle-ss-political-science-textbook/interest-groups-7/party-organizati-on-57/national-convention-329-8402, (accessed on: March 13th, 2016)

7 https://www.usa.gov/election#item-211665, (accessed on: March 13th, 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)


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 chang-es 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 Viet-nam. 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] 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.


states who did not have primaries. In these states the par-ty leaders controlled the delegate votes. In 1968 only 14 states held primaries, along with Washington D.C. Dele-gates 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.


The nomination of Humphrey created dissent wit-hin the Democratic Party. 4The result was the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which was created to improve the conditions of the nomination process.5 Before the Mc-Govern-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 cam-paign 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 re-sulted from the McGovern-Fraser Commission resulted in a higher rate of participation and interest from the pu-blic.

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-Janu-ary or early-February and continues through mid-June

4 Ibid. 5 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.


of the election year.11 States hold their primaries (or ca-ucuses, 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 primari-es of their influence.14 The growing number of primaries meant that the campaigns became longer. With increa-sing public participation the media took more of an in-terest 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 majo-rity number of delegates to attain the nomination.15 The-se delegates are assigned through the votes of the elec-torate or through super delegation. Assigning delegates based on voting results varies between states. States can have either proportional representation, with the candi-dates receiving the amount of delegates proportional to the number of votes that they received, or “winner-ta-ke-all”, with the candidate who receives the most votes being awarded all of the delegates from that state.16 Su-per delegates currently only exist within the Democratic Party and are free to support any candidate they wish.

11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid.


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 front-loading unfairly staggers the influence of states’ prima-ries 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 continual-ly improved upon, and even the problem of front-loading may be solved.


Other Works Cited:

Our Campaigns – US President – D Primaries Race – Mar 12, 1. 1968. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21,2016, from http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?Race 2. ID=47021

Primaries, caucuses and conventions: Classic races for the presi-3. dential nomination. (n.d.).Retrieved April 21, 2016, from https://web.archive.org/web/ 4. 20091027101746/http://geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/Dem1968.html5.

DeSilver, D. (2016, February 17). Near-record number of prima-6. ries this year, but not quite asearly. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://www.pewresearch.7. org/fact-tank/2016/02/17/nearrecord-number-of-primaries-this-year-but-not-quite-as-early/


Slobodan Brkic* and Milan Rankovic**

SELECTING THE DELEGATES

Gopal Ratnam and Jonathan Masters define delegates as „party activists, local political leaders, or early sup-porters of a given candidate... delegates can also include members of a campaign’s steering committee or long-time 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 choos-ing the presidential nominees. In the era of ’party boss-es’, 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-mak-ing was crucial to the process. “2 According to Coleman, „state parties use two basic methods to select the nation-al 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] 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 na-tional party conventions,2016: Frequently asked questions, Congres-sional research service, December 30, 2015, p. 1.

3 Ibidem.


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 ba-sic rules governing delegate selection and convention decision making. They did this in the interest of pursu-ing 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 represen-tation 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-rais-ing 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. “ 8She continues as follows: „First, the two parties have sep-

4 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.


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 Par-ty, 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 se-cure 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.10 Gopal Ratnam, Jonathan Masters, The U.S presidential nominating

process, op.cit.

II

PRIMARY SEASON

147Primary Season

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, typi-cally 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 or-ganization 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 par-ty 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]


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 candi-dates 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 current-ly 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 en-sure that decisions by voters can be made privately. Bal-lots 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. Prima-ries additionally utilize two main types of processes: the open primary system and the closed primary system. Pro-cedures are unique and determined by individual states and the main difference is in the treatment of unaffili-ated 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)

149Primary Season

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 par-ty-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 sim-ply marks the ballot to record his or her choice.3

Source: The Economist

3 Ibid.


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 gen-erally 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 re-gards 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 pro-portional 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 mem-bers, Governors, past Presidents, and other prominent lead-ers 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 sub-ject among voters because some believe it undermines the democratic process.4 The Republican presidential candi

4 Ibid.

151Primary Season

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


Advantages of the Primary System

The main advantage of primary elections for presi-dential candidates is the ability to concentrate their cam-paign efforts in a specific area rather than having to be politically present in all states simultaneously. For ordi-nary voters, primary systems encourage their engage-ment 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 presiden-tial election system as well. The scheduling of primary elections allows early states to have a great deal of polit-ical power and influence over the election regardless of their size or population. Presidential candidates spend a tremendous amount of time campaigning in early pri-mary 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 sys-tem typically focuses on individual candidates rather than parties or policies. This lack of party cohesion can lead to the personalization of politics with great empha-sis on a candidate’s personal affairs rather than their political ideas.

153Primary Season

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 in-formation. Voters who are better informed, dedicated, and strongly committed to parties or candidates are the most likely to vote in primary elections. The lower turn-out in the United States primary elections leads to ex-aggerated 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, candi-dates then embrace more moderate positions to appeal to the general electorate that includes moderates and centrists. This sudden change in ideological stances can


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 be-come 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 Ansolabe-here and John Mark Hansen. 2010. “Primary elections and parti-san polarization in the U.S. Congress.” Quarterly Journal of Politi-cal Science. 20 (March): 169-191, (accessed on April 13th 2016)

155Primary Season

Source: Pew Research Center

III

NATIONAL PARTY CONVENTIONS

159National Party Conventions

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 Demo-crats 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] The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Con-


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_re-publican.html, (Accessed on April 27th 2016)

3 Ibid.


on the election results. Ever since Lincoln in 1860, none of the Republican candidates have won the general elec-tions 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 con-vention 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 Declara-tion of Independence and the United States Constitution. Additionally, one quarter of U.S. citizens live within a five-hour drive from Philadelphia. The best indicator of this city’s relevance is the fact that the Democrats have organ-ized 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 at-tractions, 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 Con-vention in Cleveland, Available at: http://time.com/2966830/2016-republican-convention-cleveland/, Accessed on April 27th 2016

5 Ibid.6 The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Con-


7 Ibid.8 Larry Olmsted, Why The Democratic National Convention Is Com-

ing To Philadelphia, Available at> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2016/02/25/why-the-democratic-national-commit-tee-is-coming-to-philadelphia/#4f2fd9c16005, (Accessed on April 27th 2016)


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 fu-ture of party politics. This is what makes national con-ventions 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 respect-ed party members. The first day ends with a speech de-livered 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 re-mind 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 re-sults of the primaries. Ever since 1952, there has been no


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, del-egates vote for the vice-presidential candidate, and the procedure remains the same as with the presidential can-didate. It is customary for the presidential candidates to announce their own choice for their vice-presidents be-fore the conventions start. Choosing a candidate for vice-president is not an easy job. Historically, one third, or pre-cisely 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 can-didate is the presidential candidate’s most valuable part-ner 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 expe-rience, he might choose a former member of Congress with an impressive public career for his VP and com-

9 Nelson W. Polsby, Aaron Wildavsky, Steven E. Schier, David A. Hopkins, Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of Ameri-can Politics, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Mary-land, 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-looking-2016-presidential-candidates-n490706, (Accessed on April 27th 2016)


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 which-ever 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.


Marko Despotovic*

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND MEDIA

National conventions are events where both the Re-publican and the Democratic Party will nominate their presidential candidates for the upcoming general elec-tions on November 8th 2016. The Republicans are having their convention in the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleve-land, OH, starting on July 8th through July 21st, while the Democrats are organizing theirs in the Wells Fargo Cent-er 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 conven-tions, 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] http://convention.gop/about 2 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-on-new-credentialing-role-for-conventions-222017, (Accessed on April 20th, 2016)


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 stream-ing by media or parties themselves has become very pop-ular 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.


William Knight*3

BROKERED NATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Could there be a brokered National Convention in 2016?

Before seeking to determine whether or not a bro-kered or multi-ballot convention will take place, the cir-cumstances 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 accumu-late in the primary election determines what puts a can-didate 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 candida-te 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 delega-tes that determine whether or not there will be a front-runner.

In the year 2016, it is hard to conclude whether or not there will be a need for a brokered convention, be-cause 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]


blican Party is Donald J. Trump, whose extremely succe-ssful campaign has shocked the nation as well as a multi-tude 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 sho-uld be considered.

Before the era of primary elections, a great deal of presidential elections were brokered. The last time an ac-tual brokered national convention took place in order to produce a president was in 1932, with Franklin D. Ro-osevelt 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 Tues-day, Barack Obama held a miniscule lead over his conte-ster, Hillary R. Clinton, bringing the potential for a bro-kered 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 dele-gates 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 be-gan 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-


list, and Donald Trump, a businessman whose statements are far from politically correct, are considered very popu-lar 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 Cali-fornia 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 Con-vention 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 sub-stantial 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, math-ematically 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 cap-ture the nomination. In this brokered convention there were three rounds, and the magic number of votes needed


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 din-ner. 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 be-ing 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

Kamarck, Elaine. “What Is a Brokered Convention, and Are 1. We Going to Have One in 2016?” The Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution, 12 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.Prokop, Andrew. “The GOP’s Nuclear Option: How Trump Could 2. Be Denied the Nomination Even with a Majority.” Vox. Vox, 24 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.Rothman, Lily, and Heather Jones. “Confused about How Trump 3. Could Be Denied the Republican Nomination? Let 1952 Be Your Guide.” Time. Time, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

IV

CAMPAIGNS

173Campaigns

Wyatt Amaral*4

PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are vital to any Primary. The most pow-erful 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 weak-nesses. Due to their importance, campaigns are of the ut-most 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 public-ity. Presidential primary campaigns are very important, and we will discuss several different aspects of primary campaigns. Primary campaigns seek to maximize expo-sure and differentiate candidates from one another. To understand primary campaigns, it is important to under-stand 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]


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 ob-vious, substantive differences forcing minor differences to be displayed more prominently.

According to Samuel Popkin, candidates try to pro mote themselves and portray their opponents neg-atively throughout the course of an election (Popkin, 2012). Candidates seek to establish their personal char-acter 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 can-didates 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 cam-paign 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 presiden-tial 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).

175Campaigns

The Citizens United Supreme Court Case greatly changed campaign financing because it protected dona-tions 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 Commit-tee can raise for candidates. These Political Action Com-mittees, 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 na-tional elections, even growing faster than growth in in-come, 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 elec-toral win, and any other result can be called a loss. For this reason, campaigns are of the utmost importance to


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:

Adams, B., & Settle, R. (1978). The Economic Theory of Regulation 1. and Public Financing of Presidential Elections. Journal of Political Economy , 86 (2).Fuller, J. (2014, April 3). 2. 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-hi-story-of-campaign-finance-reform-from-george-washington-to-shaun-mccutcheon/ Popkin, S. (2012). 3. The Candidate: What it Takes to Win – and Hold – the White House. New York: Oxford University Press.Scherer, M., Rebala, P., & Wilson, C. (2014, October 23). 4. The Incredible Rise in Campaign Spending. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from TIME Magazine: http://time.com/3534117/the-incredible-rise-in-campaign-spending/The Editorial Board. (2015, April 27). 5. How Super PACs Can Run Campaigns. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/opinion/how-su-per-pacs-can-run-campaigns.html

V

CANDIDATES

179Candidates

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 ex-perience 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 presiden-tial race include climate change and energy, criminal justice reform, gun violence prevention, immigration reform, national security, and women’s rights and op-portunity.2

* [email protected] Britannica.com (accessed 3 March 2016)2 Ath the Oficial website Hillaryclinton.com *all of the issues are not

presented


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, hos-pitals, 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 reform-ing mandatory minimum sentences and ending private prisons. There is a current problem with former incar-cerated individuals finding it difficult to re-enter soci-ety 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 vio-lence.

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.

181Candidates

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 loop-hole 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 Char-leston, 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 im-migration reform to create a pathway to citizenship in order to keep families together and enable workers to work freely within their community. Clinton has prom-ised 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. Clin-ton also hopes to conduct human and targeted immigra-tion enforcement, as well. She is against family deten-tion 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 immi-grant families.


National security

Clinton proves herself to be a more moderate demo-crat 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 sup-porting 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 interna-tional friends and allies to encourage China to be respon-sible for human rights, trade, and climate change.

Clinton also hopes to decrease the European depend-ence on Russian oil while also deterring Russian aggres-sions 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 fore-most, 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 advo-cates for the protection of women’s health and reproduc-tive 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. (Hillary-clinton.com)

183Candidates

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. Unfortunate-ly, due to the Holocaust, Eli lost several family members and decided to leave Poland in order to survive. Sand-ers 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-a-half bedroom apartment their family rented. According to Bernie, the lack of money was the cause of many quar-rels 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 basket-ball 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://biogu-

ide.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.)


president of the student parliament and lost, but he end-ed 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 activ-ist, 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 gradu-ated in 1964, Bernie Sanders moved to Vermont and pur-chased a piece of land worth $ 2.500.

In Vermont, Sanders came by a small, anti-war, pro-gressive 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 mar-gin. 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.4 Dekol, BERNIE SANDERS LEADS 1962 SIT-IN,Bleak beauty blog,

Available at: https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/ (Accessed: 19.03.2016.)

5 Ibidem.6 He was not a mamber of neither the Democratic nor the Republi-

can Party.7 Biography, Bernie Sanders, Biography, Available at: http://www.bi-

ography.com/people/bernie-sanders (Accessed: 20.03.2016.)

185Candidates

democratic socialist in 2006 when he ran against a Re-publican businessman, Richard Tarrant, even though his campaign funds were significantly smaller.8

Finally, Sanders announced his presidential candi-dacy 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 politi-cal 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 hu-man 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 speech-

8 Ibidem9 Ibidem10 InsideGov, Bernie Sanders – Background, InsideGov, Available from:

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/35/Bernie-San- ders (Accessed 20.03.2016.)

11 InsideGov, Bernie Sanders – Issues, InsideGovhttp://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/l/35/Bernie-Sanders (Accessed: 20.03. 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 ma-terial”. 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 Demo-cratic 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-san-ders-democratic-candidate-profile (Accessed: 20.03.2016.)

13 Bernie sanders, Reforming Wall Street, Bernie sanders, Available at: https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/ (Ac-cessed: 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-believe-in/ (Ac ces sed: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-hil-lary-really-that-much-more-electable-than-bernie/ (Accessed: 20.03.2015)

187Candidates

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 cru-cial 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 educa-tion and student loans, restoring democracy through a lesser influence of big money in politics, raising the minimum wage, dealing with climate change, immigra-tion policy, ending racial and sexual discrimination, universal healthcare, reforming Wall Street, veteran is-sues, as well as strengthening and expanding social se-curity.16

This Democratic nomination candidate believes eco-nomic 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


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 tax-payer 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 cur-rent 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 pro-gram. 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 chil-

17 ibidem18 ibidem19 ibidem20 ibidem21 ibidem

189Candidates

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 neces-sary 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 fi-nancial 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 pro-grams, 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 liber-ally oriented young people.25

Dealing with climate change is another issue he fo-cuses on – these changes were caused by human kind and we need to be aware of the importance of the prob-lems they can lead to. Sanders criticizes Republicans and

22 ibidem23 ibidem24 ibidem25 ibidem


blames them for defending the profits of companies that pollute, rather than protecting the environment. He be-lieves the U.S. should invest in clean and sustainable en-ergy, make changes in their electric and transportation infrastructure, as well as lead the international commu-nity in the battle with climate changes, all the while aim-ing 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 Republi-cans regarding the reduction of social security, dealing with climate change, abortion, minimum wage and im-migrants. Most of the discussions and political conflicts he was involved in were against the leading Republican, Donald Trump. Also, even though he indirectly took Hil-lary Clinton’s side in the beginning of the campaign when he agreed her email affairs should not be stressed any-more, their debates on various topics can, naturally, get quite heated.

26 ibidem

191Candidates

Debates

In the beginning of the Democratic debates, there were only three candidates which is significantly less compared to the Republican nomination candidates. Af-ter 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 is-sues, 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 in-cluded in the “political revolution” that America needs.

One topic that may present a flaw in Bernie’s cam-paign is foreign policy – he had undefined and unclear stances, and it was only later in the campaign that he re-flected on them somewhat more precisely.

Donations

Bernie Sanders is different from other candidates, first of all because he refused donations from big corpo-rations in the very beginning, thus showing his ideologi-cal 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. Accord-ing 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


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

193Candidates

Milan Rankovic,* Slobodan Brkic**

DONALD TRUMP

According to his official website, “Donald J. Trump is a very definition of the American success story, con-tinually setting the standards of excellence while expand-ing 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 educa-tion, 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 at-tended Fordham University in New York and then trans-ferred to the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated in 1968 with a B.S in eco-nomics and real estate.3 He has his own brand, and “The Trump Organization” is presented as „the world’s only

* [email protected]** [email protected] Donald J. Trump, Biography, http://www.trump.com/biography/, (ac-

cessed: 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.)


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 devel-opment, 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 ad-vantage is his anti-establishment direction.6 Aleksandar Gajic also states that “Trump’s ascendancy is mostly a consequence of anger coming from the Republican elec-torate and the conservative ’silent majority’ towards fed-eral 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-trump-biography-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, (ac-cessed: 6.4.2016.)

7 Ibidem.

195Candidates

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 repu-tation 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 bil-lionaire 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 stand-up comedian with zero political experience be command-er 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 establish-ment 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.globalre-search.ca/joining-the-dots-why-the-establishment-hates-donald-trump/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-Mon-tana-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/trumps-first-100-days-as-president/5518253, (accessed: 6.4.2016.)


Konstantin Lijakovic*

TED CRUZ

Ted Cruz was born in 1970 in Canada. His family was temporarily located in Calgary due to business commit-ments. 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 fa-ther’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] https://www.tedcruz.org/about/, (Accessed on June 7th 2016)

197Candidates

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 defend-ing 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 constitution-ality 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 mar-riage was one of the darkest moments in U.S. history.3 However, his economic program is quite liberal. He advo-cates 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 in-come 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 “na-tion 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/About-Ted-Cruz.pdf, (Accessed on June 7th 2016)

3 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/06/27/Ted-Cruz-Gay-marriage-ruling-makes-one-of-darkest-days-in-US-history/9301435429916/, (Accessed on June 7th 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 free-dom, a different economic policy and Christian values. During his campaign, he continually emphasized the im-portance 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 dif-ferent 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 de-bates, Cruz entered most arguments with the other con-servative 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 re-gards to Cruz’s birthplace, but also considering other po-litical 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 dis-cussions 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, (Ac-cessed on June 7th 2016)

199Candidates

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 be-coming 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 cer-tainly 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 sig-nificant factor in his political actions and speeches, and strongly determines the policies he stands for. Accord-ing to the American Conservative Union, he received the highest ratings for voting in Senate in terms of ideologi-

* [email protected]** [email protected] www.biography.com, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015)


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 sup-port 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 him-self 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 mar-riage on a federal level, and believes that decision should be made on the state level. He opposes abortion and le-galizing 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 nomi-nation 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 pre-sented 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)3 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)

201Candidates

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 recog-nize 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, Ru-bio 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, (Ac-cessed 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 advi-sors, 2016, Ballotpedia, Available at: https://ballotpedia.org/Mar-co_Rubio_presidential_campaign_key_staff_and_advisors,_2016, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015)


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 Syr-ia.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/pol-itics/articles/2015-11-16/paris-terrorist-attacks-could-mark-a-turn-ing-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-par-is-terrorist-attacks-a-positive-development-americans.html, (Ac-cessed 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 af-ter Florida loss, CNN, 2016, Available at: http://edition.cnn.

203Candidates

Debates

The expectations that the first Republican debate would revolve around Donald Trump came true.14 How-ever, Marco Rubio managed to get out as the latent win-ner 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 preced-ing 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 ac-cused Rubio of only reciting well prepared sentences, and managed to prove this by provoking Rubio into re-peating previously stated things, thus affirming the ac-cusation.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 Republi-can Debate, Bloomberg, 2015, Available at: http://www.bloomb-erg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-07/why-marco-rubio-may-have-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/chris-christie-marco-rubio-gop-debate.html, (Accessed on: June 7th 2015)


Donations

In February 2016, the New York Times published a report on funds raised by all candidates during their cam-paigns. 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-2016-campaign-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

207Party Divisions

Teodora Markovic* and Ryan Bartley**

PARTY DIVISIONS: INTRODUCTION

How are political parties relevant to presidential elections?

“Every president since 1852 has been either a Re-publican or a Democrat, and in the post-World War II era, the two major parties’ share of the popular vote for presi-dent 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 Demo-cratic 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 INFOR-

MATION PROGRAMS U.S. Department of State


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 candi-date 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 presi-dency. 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.

209Party Divisions

Tabl

e 1-

Par

ty d

ivis

ions

Part

yFa

ctio

nM

ain

Idea

sN

otab

le in

divi

dual

s

Dem

ocra

tic

Prog

ress

ives

univ

ersa

l hea

lth c

are,

figh

t aga

inst

glo

bal w

ar-

min

g, p

arty

tran

sfor

mat

ion

Bern

ie S

ande

rs

Dem

ocra

tic

Libe

rals

stro

ng a

nd in

volv

ed g

over

nmen

t, fr

ee tr

ade,

ci

vil l

iber

ties,

less

mili

taris

ticN

ancy

Pel

osi

Dem

ocra

tic

Cent

rist

soci

al li

bera

lism

, eco

nom

ic c

onse

rvat

ism

, mor

e m

ilita

ristic

, les

s gov

ernm

ent s

pend

ing

Hill

ary

Clin

ton

Repu

blic

anEs

tabl

ishm

ent

emph

asis

on

clas

sic

cons

erva

tive

valu

esPa

ul R

yan,

John

Boe

hner

, Mitt

Ro

mne

y, Je

b Bu

sh

Repu

blic

anEv

ange

licre

ligio

us li

bert

yM

ike

Huc

kabe

e

Repu

blic

anTe

a Pa

rty

low

er ta

xes,

less

gov

ernm

ent s

pend

ing

Ted

Cruz

, Mar

co R

ubio

Repu

blic

anLi

bert

aria

nsfr

ee m

arke

t, le

ss g

over

nmen

t in

gene

ral

Rand

Pau

l


Table 2- Presidents of the United States of America2

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

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

211Party 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-


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 im-plemented. 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 in-clusive, 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 sur-vived 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 to-gether: Democrats believe that we’re greater together than


213Party Divisions

we are on our own—that this country succeeds when eve-ryone 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 per-son 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 di-versity 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

1 https://www.democrats.org/about/our-party (retrieved April 11 2016) 2 http://www.pdamerica.org/about-us/mission, (Accessed on April

11th, 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 de-pending on where you are, this will have different mean-ings. In the United States, being a liberal is associated with endorsing large expenditures of the government, of-ten for different social programs (education, health care etc.); whereas in Europe, the meaning is the exact op-posite. 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 eco-nomic 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 direct-ed towards minimizing, rather than maximizing public

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

215Party Divisions

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, Mod-erate Democrats or Clinton Democrats. This faction has emerged in the late 1980s because the Democrats had been suffering difficult losses in the political arena. Ba-sically, 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 advo-cates of using more military force and reducing govern-ment 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 popu-lar and, with the centrists at the helm of the party, the Democrats started winning elections again.

References:

http://www.democrats.org 1. http://www.pdamerica.org 2. https://www.whitehouse.gov 3. Meyers, William P. 2004. 4. A Brief History of the Democratic PartyUSA ELECTIONS in Brief5. . BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS U.S. Department of State

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


Ryan Bartley*5

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

How was the Republican Party founded?

In 1854, the Whig party dissolved and the new Re-publican 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 Abra-ham 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 conserva-tive than their Democratic opponents. Keeping Ameri-can traditional values, enforcing present laws, abiding by the Constitution, and supporting the classical free mar-ket are the main tenets in which the Republican Party clings. Security-wise, especially since the 9/11 attacks,


217Party Divisions

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 loud-est voice regarding party doctrine is, of course, the es-tablishment. 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 re-ligious 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 constitu-tion 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 move-ment’s conviction to lower taxes. Its members, many of whom have a combination of libertarian and populist ide-ology, 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 liber-tarians joining the ranks of the Republican Party. In re-cent years, former Texas Senator Ron Paul and later his son Rand Paul have been leaders of this faction. Both of


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:

https://gop.com/principles-for-american-renewal6. / http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-7. founded

219Party Divisions

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 establish-ment 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 liber-tarians, evangelicals, tea partiers, and general fiscal con-servatives under one single umbrella against the dreaded left-wing rain. Disputes between party members on pol-icy are driving many against the establishment with ex-treme 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 elec-tion next year?” would likely reply saying that they are excited for an easy victory over the Democrats’ only can-didate, 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 es-tablishment Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. However, at the same time, if one asked a typical republican or in-

* [email protected]


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 estab-lishment candidates weren’t the most charismatic candi-dates 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 Repub-lican nominee.

One hot humid summer New York morning, a ce-lebrity 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 (per-haps most of all) that he wasn’t closely affiliated with the present party establishment.

221Party Divisions

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-es-tablishment voters gathered around the anti-political cor-rectness 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 soft-spoken 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 con-gressmen 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.


Perhaps the most anti-establishment candidate, yet also the most overlooked by voters, was Kentucky Sena-tor Rand Paul. The Duke-educated eye doctor-turned-politician 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 mari-juana 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 Social-ist Vermont Senator Sanders. However, following clash-es 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 so-cially liberal yet remaining fiscally conservative, Paul’s libertarian policies and strict adherence to the constitu-tion may attract more than just college students and life-long libertarians in the upcoming years. Especially if the country’s political party fissure widens so that the demo-crats 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 pos-sibility, 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 hesi-tance to support the legalization of marijuana, the social

223Party Divisions

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 disa-gree 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 conserva-tives by calling them “bigoted, old-fashion, out-of-date, intolerant, and discriminatory.” By eliminating such poli-cies, the G.O.P. could highlight their platform on liberal economics against the Democrats’ growing intervention-ist and socialist economic policies. However, social con-servatives 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 Chris-tian 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


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, keep-ing 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, Trum-plicans 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?

227How will the Outcome of Election Affect Western Balkans/Serbia?

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 rel-evant 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 politi-cal 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 are-na 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] http ://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/

articles/2016-02-29/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-doctrine-actu-ally-makes-a-lot-of-sense (Accessed: 17 April 2016)

2 Ibidem


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 glo-balized 21st century world.4 Current outcomes and pre-dictions about the elections are not working in Sanders’ favor, and it is yet to be seen how the race will eventu-ally end. Another important thing about his view on for-eign policy is a perspective of “skeptical restraint”.5 He shows a great consideration in terms of the cost of mili-tary 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 ac-tions 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 Amer-ica 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 Ibidem4 Ibidem5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-fore-

ign-policy-realist/2016/03/08/c7f3422e-e48a-11e5-a6f3-21ccd-bc5f74e_story.html (Accessed: 17 April 2016)

6 Ibidem


far from pacifist. He supported the use of force in the Balkans during Bill Clinton’s administration, and the Af-ghanistan 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 tradition-ally 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 mil-itary 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 eas-ily change his or her mind. Interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria are all good examples, and Hillary strongly sup-ported all three of them. When it comes to Hillary Clin-ton’s foreign policy platform, it is worth mentioning that she is the only major candidate with experience in the ex-ecutive 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 suc-cess as Secretary of the State.8 Either way, in the heat of the presidential race, what Hillary finds most flattering

7 Ibidem8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/10/hi-

l lary-cant-name-top-accomplishment-as-secretary-of-state/#594d9eb646a4, (Accessed: 17 April 2016)


about her foreign policy experience concerns supporting the raid against Bin Laden, the seize-fire in Gaza, and im-posing sanctions on Iran.9

When it comes to general foreign policy views, “De-fending America and our core values is one of the corner-stones 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 cen-tury 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 sup-ported 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 pre-

9 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/20/secstate-record/, (Accessed: 17 April 2016)

10 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/, (Acce-ssed: 17 April 2016)

11 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/, (Acce-ssed: 17 April 2016)

12 http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Poli-cy.htm, (Accessed: 17 April 2016)


cise, about the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the aftermath of the Dayton agreement. This can only im-ply 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 Sec-retary 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 mat-ter 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 dur-ing 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 nam-ing streets and installing statues of Bill Clinton on the squares, to openly supporting and fundraising for Hi-lary’s Presidential campaign.14

One thing is certain about Hilary’s foreign policy views – she deeply believes not only that U.S. has to af-firm its leading role in the world, but also that it still has a stake in the Balkans. Aside from the unfinished busi-ness she often mentions, the current events in light of the ongoing refugee crisis, as well as the recent terror-ist 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-offi-cials-attend-to-unfinished-business-in-the-Balkans/, (Accessed: 17 April 2016)

14 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/albanians-loyal-to-hi-llary-clinton-presidential-race-04-18-2016, (Accessed: 17 April 2016)


by a wave of refugees mainly consisting of Middle East-ern 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 Mac-edonia can just be added to the pile of unfinished busi-ness. 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 witness-ing a major U.S. comeback to the Balkans. First of all, she would be interested in finishing what she obviously per-ceives 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.


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 ex-ecutive branch consisting of the president who is head of the state. This model is known as the presidential politi-cal 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 initia-tive, as well as the right to veto any bill or other legal doc-ument 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. Howev-er, in the post-World War Two era, it is the president who dominates this process. The U.S. National Security Coun-cil is an institution with a significant role in the process of creating foreign policy. Aside from the President, oth-er members of the Council include the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor. The Chair-man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is also the main military

* [email protected] Ivo Visković, Između zavere i birokratskog haosa – kako se stvara

spoljna politika SAD, Anagraf, Beograd, 2007, str. 75.


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 partici-pates 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 deter-mined direction of foreign policy. Therefore, even though a new president may bring some changes, which has hap-pened throughout history, they are never big enough to significantly influence the foundations and a predeter-mined 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 so-called state of Kosovo, the EU integration processes in Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the Russian Federation’s influ-ence 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)


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 iso-lationist, 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 calcu-lated 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 be-lieves that the U.S. invests too much money in protecting allies such as Japan and South Korea.

American-Russian relations have the biggest conse-quences 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 pub-licly 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 ef-fect on some of the Balkan states, especially Serbia. Ad-ditionally, the Ukrainian crisis had a major influence on Europe, and Serbia was pressured to adjust its for-eign 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

239Rečnik američkih izbora

Reč unapred

Svake četiri godine, „prvog utorka, posle prvog po-nedeljka meseca novembra“, pored izbora za jednu tre-ćinu Senata i celokupni Predstavnički dom Kongresa (treba naglasiti da se članovi Predstavničkog doma bira-ju 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 globalizo-vanim 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 Američ-kih 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. no-vembra zapravo je završnica jednog dugog, iscrpljujućeg i skupog nadgornjavanja između aktuelnog predsednika Sjedninjenih Američkih Država, Baraka Obame i njego-vih izazivača, pre svih kandidata Republikanske stranke, Mita Romnija.

Tim povodom, Centar za društveni dijalog i regio-nalne inicijative kao organizator Seminara studenata Fakulteta političkih nauka, pojačao je svoje snage sarad-njom sa Udruženjem za studije SAD u Srbiji i svoj VI po redu seminar, koji se ove godine održava upravo u vre-me predsedničkih izbora u Sjedinjenim Američkim Dr-


žavama, posvetio upravo ovoj temi. Pored mnogobrojnih drugih aktivnosti, ideja organizatora je bila da se studenti diplomskih akademskih master studija Sjedinjenih Ame-ričkih Država na Univerzitetu u Beogradu – Fakultetu političkih nauka delatno uključe u ostvarivanje ovog po-duhvata. Pored pažljivog praćenja izbora, odnosno samih kandidata i glavnih tema u kampanjama, jedna od važni-jih stvari bila je i prevod upravo ovog Pojmovnika ame-ričkih izbora na srpski jezik. Sam pojmovnik je inače deo Internet sajta Stejt dipartmenta koji je posvećen američ-kim izborima.1

Iako su u samom prevodu Pojmovnika učestvovali gotovo svi studenti diplomskih akademskih master studi-ja SAD na Univerzitetu u Beogradu – Fakultetu političkih nauka generacije 2012 / 2013, želimo naročito da ista-knemo rad i zalaganje naših koleginica i kolega: Jelene Mitić, Ivane Katić, Božane Mirkov, Tamare Divjakinje, Nevene Popović, Borisa Baščarevića, Darka Čačića, Milo-ša Nikolića, Milana Paprice, Ivana Vejvode, Petra Glišića, Miloša Subote... Takođe, dragocen doprinos u prevodu ovog pojmovnika dao je i kolega Nikola Jokanović; lektu-ru pojmovnika uradila je Božana Mirkov.

Poduhvat u celini ne bi bio moguć bez pomoći amba-sade Sjedinjenih Američkih Država u Beogradu, a poseb-no gospođe Tijane Hrkalović iz Odeljenja za javne poslove ambasade. Najposle, podrška za štampanje Pojmovnika, kao i za održavanje samog skupa, stigla je od naših prija-telja 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. Gos-

1 Tekst se u originalu može pronaći na sledećoj internet adresi: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/12/20111228115119tegdirb2.994281e-02.html#axzz2AivtSg4o (pristuplje-no 05. 05. 2012.)


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 Američ-kim Državama 2012. godine bio moguć.

Naposletku, a u skladu sa drevnom latinskom maksi-mom da „reči lete a da ono što je zapisano ostaje,“ nada-mo 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


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 repre-zentativni uzorak, da bi im postavila niz tipskih pita-nja. 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 Ame-rikanci misle o različitim kandidatima i društvenim temama. Videti takođe odrednicu Tematsko ispiti-vanje javnog mnjenja.

Bakli protiv Valea (Buckley v. Valeo)

Pravni spor Bakli protiv Valea završen je 1976. značaj-nom odlukom Vrhovnog suda Sjedinjenih Američkih Država o pravnoj regulativi vezanoj za finansiranja kampanje, koja je poduprla Savezni zakon o izbor-nim kampanjama i obaveze obelodanjivanja detalja finansiranja kampanje ograničenja doprinosa, kao i odredbe za javno finansiranje predsedničkih izbor-nih 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 omogu-ćena neograničena trošenja (jer oni ne primaju javna sredstva), kao i osobama ili grupama koje vode kam-panju za ili protiv kandidata, ali koji ne koordiniraju svoje aktivnosti sa drugim kandidatom ili kampa-njom. Sudska odluka takođe kaže da kandidati koji ne


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 demokrati-je u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, putem kojih građani mogu da predlože zakon ili amandmane na ustave saveznih država. Neke inicijative predlažu uki-danje postojećih državnih zakona. Države se razliku-ju po broju neophodnih potpisa, koji se zahteva kako bi se inicijativa stavila na glasanje. Ove inicijative (u nekim državama poznate kao „birački predlozi“) če-sto su, ne u svim slučajevima, predmet odobravanja proste većine. Videti takođe odrednicu Referendum (Referendum).

Birački predlog (Proposition)

Videti odrednice Građanska inicijativa i Referen-dum.

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 Ame-rikanci; 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 pra-tili kampanju ili druge događaje. Političke blogove stvaraju „blogeri“, pojedinci koji postavljaju komen-tare ili tumače vesti iz svoje perspektive. Politički


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 kandi-date 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 stavo-ve ili stavove svojih partija odgovarajući na pitanja predstavnika medija ili članova publike. Debate se mogu odvijati i preko radija, Interneta ili na nepo-srednim 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 si-stema elektorskih kolegijuma koji predviđa da svakoj pojedinačnoj državi pripada onoliko elektorskih gla-sova koliki je broj njenih predstavnika u oba doma Kongresa. Distriktu Kolumbija pripadaju tri elektor-ska 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.


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 inostran-stvu, bolest, putovanje ili vojna služba, mogu da spre-če glasače da izađu na biralište na dan izbora. Gla-sački 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 drža-ve. 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 (Citi-zens United v. Federal Election Commission)

Ovom odlukom Vrhovnog suda, donetom 2010. go-dine, 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 ograni-čenja na iznose koje ove grupe mogu da potroše na pružanje podrške ili kritikovanje političkih kandida-ta. 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 službe-nika koji rade na programima koji se finansiraju iz saveznog budžeta. Prema tom zakonu, zaposlenima je dopušteno da se angažuju u predizbornim kampa-njama, 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-


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 zabra-njeno 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 osla-bljenoj poziciji zbog predstojećeg isteka mandata.

Izazivač (Challenger)

Izazivač je kandidat koji učestvuje u izbornoj trci za političku funkciju, nadmećući se sa osobom koja tre-nutno obavlja tu funkciju. Videti takođe odrednicu Aktuelni funkcioner.

Izborni program (Platform)

Izborni program označava zvaničan pisani proglas jedne političke stranke o njenim političkim principi-ma i ciljevima, uobličen i objavljen tokom izbora za predsedničkog kandidata stranke, a potvrđen na na-cionalnoj konvenciji. U manje formalnom značenju, može označavati i poziciju kandidata prema određe-nom 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 zako-nodavni okrug bira po jednog kandidata, a pobednik je kandidat koji dobije najviše glasova. Sistem „jedan


okrug – jedan predstavnik“ omogućava da u svakom okrugu pobedi samo po jedna stranka. U proporcio-nalnom sistemu, koji je popularan u Evropi, koriste se mnogo veće izborne jedinice te po nekoliko pred-stavnika bude izabrano istovremeno, u zavisnosti od procenta glasova koji su ostvarile njihove stranke.

Kandidat (Nominee)

Kandidat je osoba koju su drugi članovi stranke iza-brali da se na izborima nadmeće za određenu funk-ciju. Kandidati mogu da se biraju na preliminarnim stranačkim izborima ili na kokusima. Kada samo je-dan kandidat u stranci istakne svoju kandidaturu za određenu političku funkciju, direktno postaje kandi-dat 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 najpopu-larnijeg 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 kom-binuju i tako se određuje kandidat partije na nivou te države. Ovaj pojam označava i grupu izabranih zva-ničnika koji imaju zajedničke ciljeve, i sastaju se u ci-lju planiranja politike koja treba da ostvari zajednič-ku 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.


Komisija za podršku izborima (Election Assistance Commission)

Komisija za podršku izborima je obrazovana zako-nom 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 Com-mittee – PAC)

Komiteti za političko delovanje su politički komiteti koji nisu direktno povezani sa određenom političkom strankom, već sa korporacijama, radničkim sindika-tima i drugim organizacijama. Komiteti prikupljaju novac za kandidate i učestvuju u drugim izbornim aktivnostima, a sve u cilju podrške konkretnim za-konskim rešenjima. Novčana sredstva se prikupljaju kroz dobrovoljne priloge članova, zaposlenih i akci-onara. Uticaj i broj komiteta se značajno uvećao po-slednjih 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 ko-kusa, partije se sastaju da bi odabrale kandidata za funkciju predsednika – obično je u pitanju kandidat koji je obezbedio podršku većine delegata na konven-ciji, a na osnovu ostvarenih pobeda u preliminarnim izborima. Kandidat za predsednika obično sam bira partnera u kampanji koji će biti kandidat za pot-predsednika, ali izbor za potpredsednika može i da prepusti delegatima na konvenciji, bez preporuke za određenog kandidata.


Mekejn-Fajngold (McCain-Feingold)

Mekejnov i Fajngoldov zakon, ranije poznat pod nazi-vom Zakon o reformi predizborne kampanje usvojen na predlog obe stranke, dobio je ime po dvojici pred-lagača, Džonu Mekejnu, republikancu iz Arizone, i Raselu Fajngoldu, demokrati iz Viskonsina, koji su u Senatu zatražili da se ukine „meki novac“ kao sred-stvo uticaja na kandidate koji se kandiduju za funk-cije 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 glasa-če da se opredele za određenog kandidata tako što protivkandidata prikazuju u lošem svetlu, dovodeći u pitanje njegovu/njenu ličnost ili njegove/njene ra-nije 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 me-njaju svoj izbor na narednim izborima.

Nezavisni kandidat/birač (Independent)

Nezavisni kandidat ili birač je onaj koji nije povezan ni sa jednom političkom strankom.


Nezvanično anketiranje/izjašnjavanje (Straw poll/vote)

Ovaj izraz označava nezvanično glasanje koje se kori-sti u cilju predviđanja ishoda nekog zvaničnog glasa-nja ili pak da bi se izmerila relativna snaga kandidata za potrebe nekih budućih izbora. Dobri rezultati u nezvaničnim anketama mogu da podignu popular-nost kandidatu, ali ne i nužno da predvide njegovu/njenu uspešnost na duži rok.

Ograničenost trajanja mandata (Term limits)

Ograničenost trajanja mandata podrazumeva da po-stoji ograničenje u broju godina koje funkcioner ili zakonodavac može da provede na toj dužnosti. Pred-sednik 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 pri-mary)

Glasanje u kojem mogu da učestvuju svi registrova-ni 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 kan-didata koji uživa veliku popularnost, da poveća izgle-de 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“.


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 De-mokratske stranke. Videti takođe odrednicu Crvena država (Red state).

Podela glasa (Ticket splitting)

„Podela glasa“ je izraz koji označava glasanje za kan-didate različitih političkih stranaka na istim izbo-rima, na primer, kada birač glasa za demokratskog kanditata za predsednika, a za republikanskog kan-didata 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 predsed-nik SAD dolazi iz jedne političke partije, dok, s dru-ge 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 gu-vernera, a druga upravlja zakonodavnim telom drža-ve. Podeljena vlast je česta pojava u američkom poli-tičkom 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 zako-na, države su od 2003. naovamo dobile 2,9 milijardi


dolara u cilju unapređenja izbornog procesa. Takođe, ovim zakonom je obrazovana Komisija za podršku iz-borima koja je zadužena za pružanje podrške u spro-vođenju saveznih izbora i prilikom primene izbornih zakona i programa.

Praćenje istraživanja javnog mnjenja (Tracking sur-vey)

Vid ispitivanja javnog mnjenja koji omogućava kan-didatima da prate raspoloženje birača tokom kam-panje. 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 prikuplje-nih podataka, a izostavlja odgovore od prve večeri. Ako se nastavi sa tom praksom, uzorak čini stalnih 1.200 odgovora dobijenih u prethodne tri večeri. Po-sle nekog vremena, predstavnici kampanje mogu da izvrše analizu podataka prikupljenih tokom celoku-pnog istraživanja i da prouče uticaj određenih de-šavanja na stavove birača. Videti takođe odrednicu Anketa/Anketiranje.

Prekrajanje izbornih jedinica (Redistricting)

Prekrajanje izbornih jedinica predstavlja proces po-novnog iscrtavanja geografskih granica između kon-gresnih okruga, odnosno izbornih okruga unutar dr-žava iz kojih se biraju članovi Predstavničkog doma. Na nivou država, demokrate i republikanci se nad-meću kako bi došli do zakonskih i političkih meha-nizama za prekrajanje okruga, što najčešće čine us-postavljanjem kontrole nad zakonodavstvom država. Oni su tako u mogućnosti da izmene granice kongre-snih okruga i to na način koji će njihovim strankama obezbediti prednost u biračkom telu.


Preliminarni stranački izbori (Primary)

Preliminarni stranački izbori su izbori na nivou poje-dinačnih 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 te-ritoriji jedne države može da glasa za kandidata koji će predstavljati tu političku stranku, ili pak „zatvoreni” – što znači da pravo glasa za kandidata određene stran-ke 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 nezado-voljstvo kandidatima iz redova dveju glavnih politič-kih stranaka.

Rana promocija (Front-loading)

Rana promocija označava praksu zakazivanja partij-skih kokusa i preliminarnih stranačkih izbora na ni-vou pojedinačnih država već početkom kalendarske godine, znatno pre opštih izbora. Zakazujući svoje preliminarne stranačke izbore za raniji datum, dr-žava nastoji da pruži odlučujući podstrek svom stra-načkom 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 nepo-sredno nakon njegove/njene nominacije na funkciju predsednika na nacionalnoj konvenciji.


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 pred-log 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 od-nosu 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 Commi-ssion – FEC)

Ovo nezavisno regulatorno telo je zaduženo za sprovo-đenje zakona koji uređuje finansiranje izbornih kam-panja na saveznom nivou. Komisija ima šest članova koje postavlja predsednik po dobijanju savetodavnog mišljenja i saglasnosti Senata. Savezna izborna komi-sija je osnovana 1974. godine, amandmanom na Za-kon 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 pore-skih obveznika (Taxpayer check-off system)

Ovaj sistem za prikupljanje dobrovoljnih priloga omo-gućava svim poreskim obveznicima u SAD da tri


dolara od ukupnog iznosa svog godišnjeg poreza na dohodak prilože javnom Fondu za finansiranje pred-sedničkih izbora. Sve što treba da učine kako bi upla-tili prilog jeste da na svojoj poreskoj uplatnici štikli-raju kvadratić čime potvrđuju da žele da učestvuju u tom sistemu. Ovaj prilog ne uvećava i ne umanju-je iznos poreza, već se tri dolara od ukupnog iznosa plaćenog poreza ulaže u Fond za finansiranje kampa-nja 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 dona-tora kojima se, ako to žele, daje mogućnost da osta-nu anonimni. Specijalnim komitetima je zabranjeno da uplaćuju direktne donacije pojedinačnim kam-panjama, 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 kon-sultant 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 si-tuaciju ili događaj predstavili u što povoljnijem svetlu po stranu koju zastupaju.

Super utorak (Super Tuesday)

Rasprostranjena upotreba izraza „super utorak“ da-tira iz 1988. godine, kada se grupa južnih država udružila radi organizacije prvog velikog i uspešnog


niza preliminarnih stranačkih izbora koji su imali za cilj da ojačaju ulogu južnih država u procesu izbora predsedničkih kandidata i smanje uticaj ranog glasa-nja 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 prelimi-narnih stranačkih izbora u različitim delovima drža-ve. Ovo grupisanje izbora je važno zbog masovnosti i istovremenosti glasanja koje obično određuje sud-binu 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, ovo-godišnji 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 ana-lizu 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 Sje-dinjenih Američkih Država još od kraja 19. veka.

Trka konja (Horse race)

Izraz „trka konja“, kao metafora za izbornu kampa-nju, koristi se da označi napeto takmičenje i dočara uzbuđenje koje ljudi osećaju kada prate sportsko ta-kmičenje.


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 gra-đanske aktivnosti, kao što su inicijative za registro-vanje 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 upo-trebljeni 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 izno-su ne premašuju 250 dolara po osobi ispunjavaju uslov da, po principu dolar-za-dolar, budu osnov za potraživanje sredstava iz Fonda za finansiranje pred-sedničkih kampanja. Ovaj fond obuhvata prihode ostvarene od dobrovoljnih uplata u fiksnom iznosu


od tri dolara po osobi, koje poreski obveznici mogu da uplate zajedno sa porezom na dohodak. Videti ta-kođe odrednicu Sistem za prikupljanje dobrovolj-nih priloga od poreskih obveznika.

Upečatljiva izjava (Sound bite)

Upečatljiva izjava je kratka, jasna izjava prediz-bornog 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 pa-žnja na nepopularne stavove koje zastupaju protiv-kandidati.

Zakon o kampanji za savezne izbore (Federal Election Campaign Act – FECA)

Zakon o kampanji za savezne izbore, donet 1971. go-dine uz izmene i dopune iz 1974, 1976. i 1979. godi-ne, 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 saku-pljenih priloga i troškova tokom kampanje za savezne izbore i propisuje pravila za finansiranje predsednič-kih 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 li-stiće za druge mere ili nestranačka nadmetanja koja se odvijaju istog dana. Videti takođe odrednicu Pre-liminarni izbori.


261Glossary of U.S. Election Terms

„Glossary of U.S. Election Terms1

28 December 2011

„Absentee voting

Absentee voting allows voters who cannot come to po-lling places to cast their ballots. A variety of circum-stances, including residency abroad, illness, travel or military service, can prevent voters from coming to the polls on Election Day. Absentee ballots permit re-gistered voters to mail in their votes. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, a federal law, governs absentee voting in presidential electi-ons. 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 consti-tutions. Some initiatives propose the repeal of exi-sting state laws. States vary in the number of signa-tures 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. Can-didates use blogs to tell visitors to their websites

1 Source: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/12/20111228115119tegdirb2.994281e-02.html#axzz4OYcXFVnE (accessed 05. 05. 2012.)


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 whe-re 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 lan-dmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision on cam-paign 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 li-mits 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 can-didate or campaign. The ruling also said that candi-dates who do not receive public money do not have to limit campaign spending of their own personal fun-ds. See also McCain-Feingold.

Caucus

A caucus is a meeting at the local level in which regi-stered members of a political party in a city, town or county gather to express support for candidates. For statewide or national offices, those recommendati-


ons are combined to determine the state party nomi-nee. The term also is used to describe a group of elec-ted 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 Congre-ssional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, whose members discuss and advance the in-terests of their respective constituencies.

Challenger

A challenger is a candidate who runs for political of-fice 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 share-holders and other groups of people enjoy the same rights that they would have if they were acting as in-dividuals. The court also ruled that the government cannot restrict how much such groups can spend to support or criticize political candidates. See also Su-per PAC.

Closed Primary

Candidates from the two major political parties (De-mocratic and Republican) compete to be their par-ties’ nominee for an office in a primary election. Closed primaries are restricted to voters registered as a member of the party holding the election. Unaf-filiated 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-


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 presi-dent, but the presidential nominee can throw open the vice presidential selection process to the conven-tion delegates without making a recommendation.

Convention bounce

An increase in a presidential candidate’s popularity, as indicated by public-opinion polls, in the days im-mediately 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 oppo-sing sides is a debate. In American politics, debates


have come to be associated with televised programs at which candidates present their own and their par-ties’ 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 mee-ting 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 Con-gress (either the Senate or the House of Representa-tives) 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 gover-nment 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 infor-mation on elections. It also reviews federal election administration and procedures.

Electoral College

The president and vice president are selected thro-ugh 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


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 campai-gns; 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 finan-ce law. The FEC consists of six commissioners appo-inted 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-lo-ading. By moving its primary to an early date, a sta-te hopes to lend decisive momentum to its preferred presidential candidate and thus have disproportiona-te 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 descri-bed as gridlock.


Hard money/Soft money

Hard money and soft money are terms used to dif-ferentiate 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 fede-ral office. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 upheld congressional restrictions passed in 2002 on soft mo-ney 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. fede-ral 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 campai-gn, but are restricted from using official authority to influence an election, including soliciting or receiving political contributions and engaging in political activi-ty — including wearing or displaying political promo-tional 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


act encourages state and local governments to elimi-nate punch-card and lever voting machines. Under HAVA, states have received $2.9 billion since 2003 to improve their election processes. The law also esta-blished the Election Assistance Commission to provi-de support to the administration of federal elections, as well as election laws and programs.

Horse race

Used as a metaphor for an election campaign, “hor-se race” is used to describe a close contest and con-veys the feeling of excitement that people experience when watching a sporting event.

Incumbent

An individual currently holding a position is the in-cumbent. 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 du-ring the time period between the election that cho-se 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.


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 sou-ght to remove “soft money” as an influence on candida-tes running for federal office. The law eliminated “loop-holes” (or legislative oversights) that in the past allowed the use of soft money to aid candidates running for fede-ral office. See also Hard money/Soft money.

Negative ads

These advertisements try to persuade voters to cho-ose a candidate by making the opposing candidate look bad, by attacking either the opponent’s charac-ter or record on the issues.

Nominee

A person selected by others to run for office is the nominee. Nominees may be selected in primary elec-tions or caucuses. When only one candidate from a party has filed to run for a political office, that can-didate becomes the party’s nominee without any fur-ther selection process.

Open primary

An open primary is one in which all registered voters may vote, regardless of whether they are registered as Demo-crats, Republicans or Independents. See also Primary.


Platform

Platform refers to a political party’s formal written statement of its principles and goals, put together and issued during the presidential nomination pro-cess and affirmed during the party’s national poli-tical 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 ma-jority 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 per-cent, 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 corporati-ons, labor unions or other organizations. The com-mittees 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


and the portion of the population that holds them in a manner representative of the full population. Pu-blic opinion polls provide an idea of what many Ame-ricans think about various candidates and issues. See also Push polling.

Primary

A state-level election in which voters choose a candida-te affiliated with a political party to run against a can-didate 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 parti-cular 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 spe-cific questions about an issue or a candidate is call push polling. See also Poll/Polling.

Redistricting

The process of redrawing the geographic bounda-ries of congressional districts, the electoral dis-


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 arran-gement for electing national and state legislators in the United States in which one candidate is elected in each legislative district; the winner is the candida-te 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.


Sound bite

A sound bite is a brief, very quotable remark by a candidate for office that is repeated on radio and te-levision 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 favora-bly 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 some-times can determine the outcome of an election by “swinging” one way or the other on an issue or can-didate. 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


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 presidenti-al 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 offi-ce. There is a term limit for the U.S. president, who may


serve no more than two consecutive terms, or eight ye-ars 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 De-mocrat for president and a Republican for senator, is called splitting the ticket. Because these voters su-pport 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 co-urse 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 inter-views 400 more voters, adds their responses to the


poll data, and drops the responses from the first ni-ght. 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 ef-fect of certain events on voters’ attitudes. See also Poll/Polling.“2

2 Source: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/12/20111228115119tegdirb2.994281e-02.html#axzz2AivtSg4o (pristupljeno 05. 05. 2012.)

277Biografije urednika pojmovnika

BIOGRAFIJE UREDNIKA POJMOVNIKA

Dr Dragan R. Simić (1961, Medveđa), Srbija, je redovni profesor i dekan Univerziteta u Beogradu – Fakulteta po-litičkih nauka. Predaje međunarodne odnose, nacionalnu i globalnu bezbednost, velike strategije i strateško mišlje-nje, 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, tako-đe, na Diplomatskoj akademiji „Koča Popović“ Ministar-stva spoljnih poslova Republike Srbije, na Vojnoj akade-miji i najvišim vojnim školama u Srbiji. Profesor Dragan R. Simić je 2014. godine izabran za profesora Univerzite-ta 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 glav-ni i odgovorni urednik časopisa Ideje, Velike i Male edi-cije 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 razu-mevati međunarodne sukobe (2006), Džona Miršajmera, Tragedija politike velikih sila (2009) (zajedno sa mr Dra-ganom Živojinovićem i dr Miljanom Filimonovićem); i Roberta Šulcingera, Američka diplomatija od 1900. godi-ne (2011) (zajedno sa Draganom Živojinovićem). Takođe, uredio je pet knjiga: Integracija Zapadnog Balkana u mrežu globalne bezbednosti (2011); Meka moć država (2013.) (za-


jedno sa mr Draganom Živojinovićem i Nikolom Kosovi-ćem); 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 od-nosima: šta možemo da naučimo iz iskustva Švajcarske? (za-jedno 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 zbor-nicima radova. Obavljao je dužnost prodekana za osnovne studije Fakulteta političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu (2003 – 2004.). Osnivač je i direktor Centra za studije Sje-dinjenih Američkih Država na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu (2004). Centar za studije SAD je jedini centar te vrste u okviru jednog državnog univerzite-ta 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 uređivač-kog odbora časopisa „Međunarodne studije“ iz Zagreba, „Review of International Affairs“, „Vojno delo“ i „Journal of Regional Security“ iz Beograda. Bio je stipendista Ful-brajtovog programa o spoljnoj politici SAD na Univerzite-tu 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 Cen-tra za studije Sjedinjenih Američkih Država Fakulteta političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu kao i sekretar master akademskih studija SAD na istom fakultetu. Po-dručje interesovanja su mu Međunarodni odnosi, spolj-na i bezbednosna politika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država

279Biografije urednika pojmovnika

i spoljna politika Srbije. Sarađivao je u prevodu studije Džozefa Naja, Kako razumevati međunarodne sukobe (pre-veo prof. dr Dragan R. Simić, 2006), a bio jedan od prevo-dilaca knjige Džona Miršajmera, Tragedija politike velikih sila (2009) (zajedno sa prof. dr Draganom R. Simićem i Miljanom Filimonovićem) i Roberta D. Šulcingera, Ame-rička 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 ča-sopisima 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 evrop-skom 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 pri-stupi: uvod u studije bezbednosti, (zajedno sa Milanom Li-povcem) iz 2014. godine; Politika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država prema regionu Zapadnog Balkana i Republici Srbiji (zajedno sa prof. dr Draganom R. Simićem) iz 2015. go-dine; Sjedinjene Američke Države i izazivači (2015) (zajed-no sa prof. dr Draganom R. Simićem i MA Nikolom Jovi-ćem) 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 Univerzi-tetu 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 stu-dije završio je na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta


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 Međunarod-ne 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 un-ije 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 multilateraliz-ma 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 Cen-tra 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 Repub-like 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.

281Biografija prevodioca pojmovnika

BIOGRAFIJA PREVODIOCA POJMOVNIKA

Lana Avakumović je rođena 10. januara 1994. godine u Arilju. Nakon završene gimnazije u Arilju, 2013. go-dine upisala je Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu i trenutno je na četvrtoj godini osnovnih aka-demskih studija međunarodne politike. Završila je Aka-demiju liberalne politike Libertarijanskog kluba Libek, a trenutno je stipendista nemačke fondacije Konrad Ade-nauer 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.

283Biografije autora priloga u pojmovnika

BIOGRAFIJE AUTORA PRILOGA U POJMOVNIKU

Aleksa Hol je rođena u Južnoj Karolini, u mestu Florens, i trenutno studira političke nauke na Univerzitetu Klem-son. 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 Grinvi-lu 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 stu-dija političkih nauka i istorije na Univerzitetu Klemson. Njena interesovanja obuhvataju međunarodne odnose, istoriju i filozofiju.

Kelsi Šulenberg je rođena 5. aprila 1995. godine u Ne-braski, u mestu Omaha. Pohađala je srednju školu “Palm Harbor Univerzitet” na Floridi gde je osvojila brojne na-grade u oblasti biomedicinske debate. Trenutno je na za-vršnoj godini osnovnih akademskih studija psihologije i globalne politike na Univerzitetu Klemson. Oblasti inte-resovanja 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 Čarlsto-nu 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 obuhvata-ju međunarodne odnose, političku teoriju, novinarstvo i književnost.


Kejleb Najt je rođen u Noksvilu u saveznoj državi Tenesi. Trenutno studira političke nauke na Univerzitetu Klem-son 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 tre-nutno studira političke nauke i ekonomiju na Univerzite-tu 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 jezi-kom.

Vajat Amaral je rođen 11. oktobra 1994. godine u mestu Napa u Kaliforniji. Tu je završio i srednju školu “Džastin-Siena”. Trenutno je na trećoj godini osnovnih akadem-skih studija ekonomije na Univerzitetu Klemson u Južnoj Karolini, a na istom univerzitetu pohađa i program poli-tičkih 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 Šap-cu. Diplomu osnovnih akademskih studija u oblasti me-đunarodne politike stekla je na Fakultetu političkih na-uka, Univerziteta u Beogradu. Trenutno je studentkinja master studija Međunarodne bezbednosti na Fakultetu političkih nauka kao stipendistkinja Misije OEBS-a u Sr-biji i Švedske agencije za međunarodni razvoj i saradnju. Jelena je učestvovala u različitim međunarodnim progra-mima kao što su Američki institut za političke i ekonom-ske sisteme, Međunarodna letnja škola komparativnih studija konflikata, i OEBS Akademija za dijaloga za mlade žene 2016. Takođe je bila angažovana na mnogobrojnim


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 go-vori engleski jezik i poznaje osnove španskog jezika.

Nevena Mančić je rođena 13. aprila 1992. godine u Alek-sincu. 2015. godine je završila osnovne akademske stu-dije međunarodne politike na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Trenutno je student regional-nih master studija mira na istoimenom fakultetu. Zavr-šila je školu Politicke komunikacije i socijaldemokrati-je pri Centru modernih veština. Stažista je Balkanskog fonda za demokratiju (German Marshal Fund of United States), kao i Beogradskog centra za bezbednosnu poli-tiku. Aktivno se bavi slikarstvom. Sfere interesovanja su joj međunarodni odnosi, mir, bezbednost, spoljna politi-ka, međunarodni ekonomski odnosi, istorija kao i umet-nost, istorija moderne umetnosti i apstraktno slikarstvo. Govori tečno engleski jezik i poznaje osnove francuskog jezika.

Nina Čaprić je rođena 11. avgusta 1994. godine u Beo-gradu. Trenutno je studentkinja četvrte godine Fakulteta političkih nauka, Univerziteta u Beogradu, modul me-đunarodna 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 ko-mercijalnom odeljenju Ambasade Sjedinjenih Američkih Država u Beogradu, a od 2014. godine je bila i aktivno


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 Beogra-du. Trenutno je student četvrte godine na modulu Me-đunarodne studije. Pored međunarodnih odnosa, njene sfere interesovanja uključuju spoljnu politiku, politički sistem SAD-a, uporednu politiku i diplomatiju. Učestvo-vala je na brojnim konferencijama, kursevima i seminari-ma 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 Beo-gradu. Juna 2016. godine je završila osnovne akademske studije međunarodne politike na Fakultetu političkih na-uka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Godine 2013. je postala li-cencirani 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 Vo-lunteers“ na dva projekta iz istog programa u Nemačkoj. Trenutno radi na poziciji menadžera za projekte i komu-nikacije u Novinskoj agenciji Tanjug. Sfere interesovanja su joj istorija, međunarodni odnosi, kulturna diplomati-ja, 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 poli-tičkih nauka, Univerziteta u Beogradu. Pored međuna-


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. god-ine. Završio je Pravno – birotehničku školu u Zemunu sa prosečnom ocenom 5,00, a proglašen je i za đaka gener-acije. Nakon toga upisuje studije međunarodnih odnosa na Fakultetu političkih nauka u Beogradu gde je diplo-mirao 2014. godine. Nakon diplomiranja na Fakultetu političkih nauka posvetio se humanitarnom radu. Tre-nutno 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 gimnazi-ju, nakon čega je 2013. godine upisao Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Trenutno je student če-tvrte 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 – izvi-đanje i planinarenje.

Konstantin Magdić je rođen 7. septembra 1992. godine u Beogradu. Nakon završene Prve beogradske gimnazi-


je, 2011. godine upisuje Fakultet političkih nauka Uni-verziteta u Beogradu. Trenutno je apsolvent osnovnih akademskih studija politikologije. Oblasti interesovanja su mu istorija, religija, bezbednost, geopolitika, međuna-rodni 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 Be-ograd. 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 ko-jima 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 sekto-ra u nevladinoj organizaciji Centar za edukaciju i druš-tvenu emancipaciju mladih (CEDEM). Sfere interesova-nja 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 studi-je – 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 svoje-vremeno urednik fakultetskog časopisa Politikolog. Nje-gove 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


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 Be-ogradu na smeru Terorizam, organizovani kriminal i bez-bednost. Sfere interesovanja su mu međunarodni odnosi u globalu, sa akcentom na Bliski istok, diplomatija, umet-nost, 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 međunarod-na politika, na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu. Istovremeno posao mu je u sferi informa-tičke bezbednosti: pravljenje antivirusnih programa, web stranica, baza podataka, zaštita bankovnih računa i bezbednosnih servera protiv hakera, mrežna i sistem-ska 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 organizova-nim pod pokroviteljstvom Centra za američke studije SAD. Trenutno je student četvrte godine Fakulteta političkih na-uka, modul međunarodna politika. Student je 24. genera-cije Beogradske otvorene skole. Oblasti interesovanja su mu međunarodni odnosi i politička teorija.

Stefan Tasić je rođen 12. decembra 1993. godine u Vra-nju. Završio je Gimnaziju „Bora Stanković“ u Vranju, sa


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 asocija-cije (ODA). Pored maternjeg jezika, govori engleski, služi se španskim.

Uroš Kusturić je rođen 30. marta 1993. godine u Beogra-du. Posle završene gimnazije u Odžacima, 2011. godine upisuje Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogra-du 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.

291Biographies of the Handbook’s Editors

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE HANDBOOK’S EDITORS

Dr. Dragan R. Simić (1961, Medveđa, Serbia) is full time professor and dean of the University of Belgrade – Fac-ulty of Political Sciences. He teaches International Rela-tions; 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 Clem-son University, South Carolina, U.S.A., upon the Coopera-tion 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 Secu-rity (2002), World Politics (2009), Discussion about Order, Second Edition (2012); From English to Serbian he trans-lated next books: Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Understanding Inter-national Conflicts (2006), John J. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2009) (with Dragan Živojinović and Dr. Miljan Filimonović); and Robert D. Schulzinger, U.


S. Diplomacy since 1900 (2011) (with Dragan Živojinović). Also, he was editor of five books: Western Balkans Integra-tion 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 ad-dition, he published dozens of articles in scientific jour-nals and conferences’ proceedings. He served as a Vice Dean for undergraduate studies of the University of Bel-grade – 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 Sci-ences 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 Stud-ies in Serbia, and is a head of the master academic studies of the United States at the University of Belgrade – Fac-ulty of Political Sciences. He is a member of the edito-rial board of the journal “International Studies” from Za-greb, 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 Pitts-burgh (2006).

Dragan Živojinović, (1975., Bogatić, Serbia) is an re-search associate at the University of Belgrade – Fac-ulty of Political Science in International Relations. He serves as a Secretary of the Center for the Studies of

293Biographies of the Handbook’s Editors

the United States of America at the Faculty of Political Sciences University of Belgrade, as well as the Secre-tary 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. Mear-sheimer, 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 Ser-bia (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 Ex-perience? (with prof. Dr. Dragan R. Simić and prof. Dr. Dejan Milenković) in 2016. He graduated from the Uni-versity 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 Fel-low at the University of California San Diego.


MA Stevan Nedeljković is born on October 17th 1987 in Kraljevo, Republic of Serbia. He finished his undergrad-uate 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, In-dia 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 Enlarge-ment Policy. He has published several articles and book reviews in the field of international relations, foreign policy, international organizations and European stud-ies (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 Estab-lishing 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 Euro-pean 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.

295Biography of the Handbook’s Translator

BIOGRAPHY OF THE HANDBOOK’S TRANSLATOR

Lana Avakumovic was born on January 10th 1994 in Ar-ilje. After graduating high school, she enrolled in the Fac-ulty 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 Lib-erty – FPN”. Fields of interest include political sociology, international relations, brain games, and written and si-multaneous translating in Serbian and English.

297Biographies of the Handbook’s Authors

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE HANDBOOK’S AUTHORS

Alexa Hall was born in Florence, South Carolina and at-tends Clemson University as a Political Science major. She enjoys international relations, international security, and European Politics. She is fluent in English and profi-cient in Spanish.

Kelly Melton was born on January 22, 1994 in Green-ville, South Carolina. She attended Travelers Rest High School where she received the senior award for Govern-ment 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 Oma-ha, 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-


ies at Clemson University, where she is majoring in Politi-cal 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 ad-dition 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 com-parative 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 Inter-national security at the Faculty of Political Sciences as a scholar of OSCE Mission in Serbia and Swedish Inter-national Development Cooperation Agency. Jelena has participated in various international programs such as American Institute on Political and Economic Systems,


International Summer School in Comparative Conflict Studies, and OSCE Dialogue Academy for Young Women 2016. She has also been engaged in numerous volunteer-ing activities and internships; like the volunteering dur-ing 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 con-flicts. She is one of the co-authors of the book United States and the Challengers, and also an alumna of Bel-grade 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 Aleksi-nac. 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 Com-munication 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 (Ger-man Marshall Fund of United States) and Belgrade Cen-tre 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 paint-ing as well. She is fluent in English and has a basic knowl-edge of French.

Nina Čaprić was born on August 11th, 1994, in Belgrade. She is currently a fourth year student of International Re-lations at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade. Besides International Relations, her academic interests are the U.S. Political System, International Se-


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 In-ternational 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 Inter-national 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 sub-jects. Along with being fluent at English, she is studying Spanish and has basic knowledge of German.

Teodora Markovic was born on January 28 th, 1994 in Belgrade. She gained her BA degree in International Re-lations 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 Bel-grade with its history, tradition and culture. During 2015 she was a participant in the UNESCO World Heritage Vol-unteers 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 preserva-tion and music. She speaks English, Spanish and German and has a basic knowledge of Italian.


Andrej Ševo was born on May 24th, 1994 and is a fourth year student of International Relations at Faculty of Po-litical Sciences of Belgrade University. Besides Interna-tional Relations, Politics in broad and USA Politics in nar-row 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 Rela-tions and Affairs on Faculty of Political Sciences, Univer-sity 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 ref-ugees, who are unattended minors are able to get infor-mal 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 be-havior 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 Bel-grade Gymnasium, after which he enrolled in the Faculty of Political Sciences in 2013. He is currently a senior un-dergraduate 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


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 Po-litical Sciences at the University of Belgrade in 2011. He is currently a senior undergraduate student of politi-cal science. His interests include history, religion, secu-rity 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 Fac-ulty 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 im-portant ones being the Youth Capstone Coalition organ-ized 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 sec-tor 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, interna-tional security, and army and armament. He is fluent in English.

Milan Ranković was born on January 3th, 1992. He at-tended 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


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 Affa-irs, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade and MA in Political Science – Terrorism, Organised Cri-me and Security, Graduate Academic International Stu-dies, 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 Bel-grade. 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, web-sites, 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 gradu-ated 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


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 interna-tional 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 Demo-cratic Association. Beside his native language, he is flu-ent 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 inter-est include history, political science of religion, geopoli-tics, and international relations. His native tongue is Ser-bian, 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