Independent run for POTUS 2020

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Can you provide one example of a Republican in a leadership position who would agree with the positions you outlined with regards to Abortion, Gun Control, Climate Change, and Progressive taxes? 

What does this have to do with anything. I brought up Wallace because he was the most successful 3rd party candidate ever and this thread is about 3rd party candidates. You have been referencing 3rd party candidates as potentially moderate figures yet history shows us otherwise. George Wallace was not a moderate by any relative standard I can think of. I don't see how you turned that into problems with what you believe the left is thinking. 

Who claims this? Some anonymous poster on a Reddit forum you read. Seriously, who specifically are you referencing? 

 

I have focused on a hypothetical moderate independent for 2020, you have been the one referencing previous third party candidates (and made good points by doing it, but don't confuse that with what I have been focusing on, all past references were initiated by you and I barely commented on them) You are absurdly suggesting that I am advocating for a non moderate candidate where I am clearly not. I wouldn't want to see just any independent candidate win POTUS in 2020. I wouldn't even want to see just any independent moderate win. I would like to see a good moderate one.

You brought up George Wallace. Today is not 1968 and I wouldn't suggest anyone like him run for anything, then or now.

I replied with regard to your quoting him. It didn't come up when I quoted you, but I assumed you would understand what I was reflecting on...here it is:

"What are the Real issues that exist today in these United States? It is the trend of the pseudo-intellectual government, where a select, elite group have written guidelines in bureaus and court decisions, have spoken from some pulpits, some college campuses, some newspaper offices, looking down their noses at the average man on the street."

Wallace wasn't Nostradamus. He was wrong in 1968. You pointed out that those words could fit some peoples opinions today. Not him.

 

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Middle ground the void 3rd party candidates fill. I have give you real world explains (Nader, Perot, Wallace) with the numbers and from different ends of the political spectrum.  If their were truly some mythical audience, the middle, which wasn't being served why hasn't a single Politician ever been smart enough to locate them? 

Did you review the link breaking down how Fiscal Conservative Socially Liberal people (self identified) vote? You didn't find it odd that fiscal and social issues aren't good indicators for how they vote? 

I think many actually have, but the Presidential candidates tend to come from the middle right and middle left, as they are elected by the right and left respectively.

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Today, you have people actually claiming that minorities cannot discriminate racially, which is garbage. 

Who is claiming this?

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

have focused on a hypothetical moderate independent for 2020, you have been the one referencing previous third party candidates (and made good points by doing it, but don't confuse that with what I have been focusing on, all past references were initiated by you and I barely commented on them) You are absurdly suggesting that I am advocating for a non moderate candidate where I am clearly not.

History is relevant here. Discussing past 3rd party candidates and who voted for them is relevant. I am not suggesting you are advocate for a non moderate candidate. Rather I am suggesting there is no uniform definition for what a moderate is. What you are suggesting is a mythical candidate who will appeal to some mythical voting block. 

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Wallace wasn't Nostradamus. He was wrong in 1968. You pointed out that those words could fit some peoples opinions today. Not him.

In the qoute Wallace attacked intellectual elitists in govt, on college campuses, and in the news media. The Wallace qoute wasn't about race. The diatribe you responded with was for some unknown reason. Half the voting age population of the U.S. was alive during Wallace's campaign. McConnell, Pelosi, Trump, Biden, Sanders, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and etc were all grow adults 1968. Pelosi married her husband in 63' and Sanders & Biden their first wives in 66'. Wallace was the most successful 3rd party candidate ever and existed within the lifetime of most voters alive today. Wallace isn't some ancient historical figure. 

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

think many actually have, but the Presidential candidates tend to come from the middle right and middle left, as they are elected by the right and left respectively.

How about you name some. There have been Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, Reform Party, Libertarians, and Constitution Party candidates on ballots over the last few elections. Their platforms and ideology is all public record. We can discuss specifics. You said "many" have so naming some should be super easy for you. 

Edited February 7, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Who is claiming this?

Have you really never heard this claim?

https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/black-people-can’t-be-racist

Again...I agree with the cause...most of the points...not the premise

Minorities can be every bit as racist as anyone else...when they are it would be a false equivalence to say it is as much of a problem...but that doesn't make it any better in principle...and most importantly...both adds to and feeds the problem.

No one gets an "out of racism free card".

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 What you are suggesting is a mythical candidate who will appeal to some mythical voting block. 

 

I am suggesting a hypothetical candidate who will appeal to moderates. Moderates are not a voting block.

From Wiki (Moderates):

Gallup polling has shown American voters identifying themselves as moderate between 35–38% of the time over the last 20 years.^[2] 

You have 100+ million people in your country eligible to be POTUS. Surely you can come up with better candidates than Trump and Clinton. (I never thought Clinton was particularly bad, but the point stands)

Edited February 7, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Minorities can be every bit as racist as anyone else.

You are, of course, correct. I doubt anyone would claim otherwise, and it seems equally clear to me that neither did a Ten Oz. 

You both were, however, talking about politicians... Wallace in particular. Admittedly, I too thought you were referencing other politicians when you introduced the idea of people claiming that minorities can’t be racist, and Ten Oz’ request for specific examples made perfect sense. 

Either way, it seems you shifted the context a bit and were instead making general claims, not claims about politicians. So, while I struggle to see why you felt it was relevant to introduce this into the conversation, at least we’ve all once again found common ground and can completely agree that such claims suggesting minorities cannot be racists are ridiculous garbage. 

Back on topic... Independent candidates would do better if our system was more parliamentary, but it’s not. Your intentions are good and it’s hard for anyone to disagree with your underlying points, but Ten Oz makes a valid counterpoint when suggesting that you seem to be describing a mythical candidate and a mythical voting base. History is full of examples showing the gaps in your position.

This strikes me as one of those book smart versus street smart conversations. Idealized cases from textbooks like the ones you appear to favor are all well and good, but in practice we need to root our ideas in reality and adjust to what actually happens on the ground in practice. 

Mike Tyson perhapssaid it best. ‘Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.’ Politics is a cage match, not a chess game. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

You are, of course, correct. I doubt anyone would claim otherwise, and it seems equally clear to me that neither did a Ten Oz. 

You both were, however, talking about politicians... Wallace in particular. Admittedly, I too thought you were referencing other politicians when you introduced the idea of people claiming that minorities can’t be racist, and Ten Oz’ request for specific examples made perfect sense. 

Either way, it seems you shifted the context a bit and were instead making general claims, not claims about politicians. So, while I struggle to see why you felt it was relevant to introduce this into the conversation, at least we’ve all once again found common ground and can completely agree that such claims suggesting minorities cannot be racists are ridiculous garbage. 

Back on topic... Independent candidates would do better if our system was more parliamentary, but it’s not. Your intentions are good and it’s hard for anyone to disagree with your underlying points, but Ten Oz makes a valid counterpoint when suggesting that you seem to be describing a mythical candidate and a mythical voting base. History is full of examples showing the gaps in your position.

This strikes me as one of those book smart versus street smart conversations. Idealized cases from textbooks like the ones you appear to favor are all well and good, but in practice we need to root our ideas in reality and adjust to what actually happens on the ground in practice. 

Mike Tyson perhapssaid it best. ‘Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.’ Politics is a cage match, not a chess game. 

Thanks. Good post. Except I really was not. Ten oz brought them up and I conceded many of the points he was making in doing it.

If you read my posts carefully, I have agreed with Ten oz that an Independent winning the POTUS is unlikely.

I am making general claims about potential US voters.

I did claim that many US politicians can locate the middle, which is hardly some mythical ground. How about almost all of them, up to the point where they are compelled toward the centre of their party, rather than the centre of the US political spectrum? This is exacerbated in any bid to win the party ticket for election to POTUS.

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If you read my posts carefully, I have agreed with Ten oz that an Independent winning the POTUS is unlikely.

I am making general claims about potential US voters.

Yes. I saw that. Again, however, you seem to be moving goalposts / switching context. I commented specifically on the idea of minorities being able to express racism. Would rather not keep going around in circles on this. I'll let you have the last word if you feel the need to continue commenting on it.

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I did claim that many US politicians can locate the middle, which is hardly some mythical ground.

And Ten Oz shared that what you call middle is actually representative of the view of the majority of Democrats. Perhaps this is another clear example of how far anchored to the right the Overton window has become.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Yes. I saw that. Again, however, you seem to be moving goalposts / switching context. I commented specifically on the idea of minorities being able to express racism. Would rather not keep going around in circles on this. I'll let you have the last word if you feel the need to continue commenting on it.

And Ten Oz shared that what you call middle is actually representative of the view of the majority of Democrats. Perhaps this is another clear example of how far anchored to the right the Overton window has become.

I do keep trying to drag the goalposts back to where I started...I think I have been consistent while clarifying.

Ten oz asked what my views were. I gave him a very brief summary on some issues. I never claimed it was the middle, though I do believe it is moderate on many issues.

I think I would be in a small minority of North Americans that believe those incarcerated should be allowed to vote, for example. That is hardly a middle or moderate position.

Nor am I recommending it for the platform of my hypothetical independent. It is simply my viewpoint.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ten oz asked what my views were. I gave him a very brief summary on some issues. I never claimed it was the middle, though I do believe it is moderate on many issues.

23 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

23 hours ago, Ten oz said:

As mentioned above the definition of moderate is relative. This is your thread how about you provide us with your definition of what sorts of positions a moderate candidate would hold on things like gun control, abortion, climate change, immigration, and etc? 

I asked for you definition of moderate. 

Can you provide examples of moderate candidates who have previously been on the ballot for President. 

*Also, moving forward when discussing matters of left and right, independent vs major party, or whatever can we focus our comments on actual Politicians and not random people who blog or post things? The OP asks about the potential of a 3rd party candidate and the Democratic Primary. No point in discussing unrelated fringe views not being advocated by anyone running for higher office. 

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 

I asked for you definition of moderate. 

Sorry about that. I certainly read that wrong.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Can you provide examples of moderate candidates who have previously been on the ballot for President. 

 

Some may have had moderate positions on some issues, but I am at a loss to name one. How does this reflect on the premise that an independent moderate could have a significant effect on the 2020 election? (whether actually running, or openly considering it during the primaries)

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

*Also, moving forward when discussing matters of left and right, independent vs major party, or whatever can we focus our comments on actual Politicians and not random people who blog or post things? The OP asks about the potential of a 3rd party candidate and the Democratic Primary. No point in discussing unrelated fringe views not being advocated by anyone running for higher office. 

(the smiley rolleyes doesn't seem to delete after I quote...)

My whole point is with regard to moderate positions that are being disregarded in favour of mid party positions.

Let's say you had a good moderate Democrat that should easily win the POTUS. What chance would they have currently of winning the Democrat ticket?

Edited February 7, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Gun control:support stricter control generally especially assault weapons. I do somewhat understand the 2nd amendment concerns with regard to government tyranny.

Abortion- I think it is somewhat tragic, but support the mothers right to choose in the first trimester. I don't late in the third, as I fail to see the fetus at that stage being less human than a premature baby. I don't know where to draw the line. I don't agree with the obvious ones at conception or birth If I had to draw one it would be when the child could be viable outside the womb...but what does that mean exactly?

Climate change: This is clearly and predominantly man made, the only debate is how fast the changes will come.

Carbon Tax: For it in principle. Too bad no one seems to like it. You have to tax something. The question is fairness and efficiency.

Taxes: Progressive income tax

Immigration: As much as a Nation can comfortably handle. Immigrants should have a path to citizenship and full rights. We should not just take in the "best and brightest" for our own selfish reasons if a poorer country they came from needs them more. Asylum seekers should have a high bar.

Border walls: Nothing inherently immoral about them.

Death penalty: Support in the most egregious cases where there is essentially no doubt, a higher bar than reasonable doubt.

Voters rights: Even incarcerated criminals should be allowed to vote in Provincial and Federal elections. Why isn't the protection of this as much of a concern to the National Rifle Association as the need for assault rifles to dissuade potential government tyranny? I would rather they vote against me than shoot me, and don't think they would all vote the same way. If there is potential to have them be so big a group and all vote one way against your views, maybe you need to take a closer look at the root causes of crime, and why they might all be against you. In any case voting is more of a group obligation than individual right.

Health Care: Two Tier

Affirmative Action: Only where absolutely necessary to reduce, not remove, some historical imbalances.

My thoughts as to moderate positions that might be tenable:

Gun control:support somewhat stricter control generally especially assault weapons.

Abortion: restricted access to abortion after 20 weeks

Climate change: Predominantly man made, work with other countries to try to reduce future impacts.

Carbon Tax: Against. Try to strike a balance as to what people are willing to do. 

Taxes: Progressive income tax, but not as high rates as Democrats would like to see. Reduce some loopholes.

Immigration: Maintain current levels, while expediting documentation (which would necessitate stricter rules). Asylum seekers to have a high bar.

Border walls: Nothing inherently immoral about them. Build barriers where they are more effective than alternatives.

Death penalty: Support in the most egregious cases.

Voters rights: Allow criminals to regain voting status after they have finished parole.

Health Care: Two Tier

Affirmative Action: Only where absolutely necessary to reduce, not remove, some historical imbalances.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Some may have had moderate positions on some issues, but I am at a loss to name one. How does this reflect on the premise that an independent moderate could have a significant effect on the 2020 election?

If there was an audience for what you are describing I think logic dictates a Politicians, multiple, would have already moved there. The fact no one has reflects the absence of an audience for it.

*To be clear I. Not saying there is no audience for moderation (relative term). Rather I am saying there doesn't appear to be an audience for what you are describing. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's say you had a good moderate Democrat that should easily win the POTUS. What chance would they have currently of winning the Democrat ticket?

A great chance? For example think Obama was moderate. Hillary Clinton was moderate as well. Moderate Democrats traditionally win the nomination. 

[rangerx]

41 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Abortion: restricted access to abortion after 20 weeks

So government control over women's bodies as incubators for the state, then?
 

43 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Carbon Tax: Against. Try to strike a balance as to what people are willing to do.

How does one strike a balance with a group that denies something exists? What ever happened to the concept of polluter pays?

The reality is, even a person who consciously does not own a vehicle, they're still on the hook for the transportation system that delivers their food and goods or the public systems they ride.

The only fair way is directly applying a carbon tax on fuel usage.  Lets be honest here, climate deniers would rather close a school, take meds from a senior or drill oil in a park than pay their fair share.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

So government control over women's bodies as incubators for the state, then?

What do you think is a moderate position on that?

 

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

How does one strike a balance with a group that denies something exists?

 

70% of American voters believe the US should work with other countries to attempt to control climate change.

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

What ever happened to the concept of polluter pays?

The reality is, even a person who consciously does not own a vehicle, they're still on the hook for the transportation system that delivers their food and goods or the public systems they ride.

The only fair way is directly applying a carbon tax on fuel usage. 

I'm pro carbon tax. I was asked what might be a moderate position, not one I would advocate. (see above)

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What do you think is a moderate position on that?

 

70% of American voters believe the US should work with other countries to attempt to control climate change.

I'm pro carbon tax. I was asked what might be a moderate position, not one I would advocate. (see above)

The moderate position on abortion is to accept the personal therapeutic needs for it and not needlessly over-burden the social welfare system. Two things that conservatives scream from the rooftops on pretty much every other issue.

The US has removed itself from the Paris Accord while continuing to be among the greater contributors to the cause. The incentive to find way back in certainly won't come from republicans any time soon.
 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Carbon Tax: Against. Try to strike a balance as to what people are willing to do.

You're pro carbon tax in one comment, but against on another?

But to get to the point, my response was directed at deniers, not you personally.

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You're pro carbon tax in one comment, but against on another?

JC is answering a question from Ten Oz, who requested an example set of policies to explain what position a moderate candidate in the US system may take. He misunderstood the previous question (I believe) and explained his own position, which may be different from the hypothetical centrist US person.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

JC is answering a question from Ten Oz, who requested an example set of policies to explain what position a moderate candidate in the US system may take. He misunderstood the previous question (I believe) and explained his own position, which may be different from the hypothetical centrist US person.

 

This is correct. My original list is my own, the second is my guesstimate of centrist positions.

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's say you had a good moderate Democrat that should easily win the POTUS. What chance would they have currently of winning the Democrat ticket?

I already addressed this by say I think Obama and Clinton were moderates. However that is just my opinion. So I would like to more specifically quantify just how moderate Democratic nominees have been in recent years. 

In 2004 John Kerry won the Democratic nomination. John Kerry was/is so moderate he asked John McCain to be his running mate. Here is a NY Times article from June of 2004 outlining how Kerry had asked McCain repeatedly and McCain intended to decline, Link. I think Kerry push ing for a cross party ticket fits any reasonable definition of moderate. 

In 2000 Al Gore won the Democratic nomination and select Joe Liberman to be his running mate. Joe Liberman is so conservative he eventually left the Democratic party, became independent, and voted with Republicans against Democratic policies. I am not providing a link here because I assume you are aware of how celebrated Joe Liberman is in conservative circles. I think Gore running with someone  like Liberman fits any reasonable definition you could possibly have for what a moderate ticket might look like. 

Sadly running in your face moderate campaigns (I really don't believe you can deny they were moderate) didn't move the needle for either Gore or Kerry. The voting demos were statistically identitical to what we saw in other general elections like 2016. Whether we look at it by age, race, religion, gender, income, or education all the same groups voted in the same percentages (+/- a statistical M.O.E) for Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Clinton.

Anti-partisan pro moderate campaigns don't influence enough votes it even be measured as having any effect at all. Not just that but between Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Clinton there is different genders and ethnicities and that did have an impact. 

For example let's look at the 2 largest voting demos, Whites and Women. Majority of voters are white and more women vote than men. 

Gore won 42% of whites and 52% of women. 

Kerry won 41% of whites and 51% of women

Obama 08' 43% of whites and 55% of women 

Obama 12' 39,% of whites and 55% of women.

Clinton won 37% of whites and 54% of women. 

Keep in mind such numbers are collecting via polling Surveys and have margins of error of 3% associated with them. Actual ballots don't record that information. So the number of whites who voted Gore, Kerry, and Obama 08' is statistical identitical. There was a marginal boost of maybe a percent in women who voted Obama and that remained statistically identitical through Clinton. It can be accounted for by the fact that the overall percentage of white female voters decreased Gore - Clinton. So the only real change was the loss (outside the MOE) of 2% of white voters through 5 elections (20yrs). Very tiny shifts over time despite totally different candidates running against totally different opponents during different time periods. Voters in the U.S., even the one who claim to be independent, are extremely party loyal. I have received the numbers quite a bit and have yet to find anything  about a candidate be it age, gender, race, religion, or policy positions that is a better indicators for who'll vote for them than Party affiliation. Nothing else matters one election to the next. 

*As a side note I would like to point out Obama did not see a statistically significant change the number of white votes he received in 2008 vs what Kerry and Gore had previously received. The notion of Obama receiving white guilt voters is a farce. Obama received the normal Democratic share of white votes in 2008. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I already addressed this by say I think Obama and Clinton were moderates.

I mean in 2020. Would you not agree the Party as a whole has shifted Left?

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I mean in 2020. Would you not agree the Party as a whole has shifted Left?

No I don't agree. I actually find the assertion silly.

I think Booker is to the right of Obama and not the left of him. Booker has spent years chumming it up in a bipartisan manner with Republicans in NJ. Here is a NY times article from 2013 about his working relationship with Chris Christie Link.

Kamala Harris has spent the majority of his career is law enforcement. She is a prosecutor. She was attort general of California. The population of California is greater than that of your whole country. It has a lot more prison inmates too. Harris is definitely not to the left of establishment moderates. 

Castro is a Red State Democrat. He spent his elected career in Texas. Not a bastion of far left ideology. 

Far as I can tell Gillbrand is basically is Republican. I have no idea why she registers Democrat. 

 

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I mean in 2020. Would you not agree the Party as a whole has shifted Left?

Hey, can you address the rest of post? I understand you are thinking about 2020 but this whole thing where you just totally ignore previous candidates, statistics, etc and just ponder about some mythical 2020 candidate with a special type of centrist charisma is getting old. There is zero precedence for a centrist, moderate, charismatic, or etc (all relative labels) influencing how people vote. I have asked you for example and you have concede none come to mind.

Every candidate comes under attack. No one under attack maintains a moderate appearance to all. Those who are sympathetic to the attackers inevitably come to the view the attacked as partisan. Kerry asked a Republican to be his VP for F's sake and the right treats Kerry as leftist partisan hack. It is the nature of the beast. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Hey, can you address the rest of post? 

 

Very good and all relevant to a degree but naturally it is limited to the past. The best you can do with it is extrapolate forward. You have made the case before with regard to the stability of much of the voting demographics. I understand they are unlikely to change. Eventually they will though, and something will have driven it.

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

No I don't agree. I actually find the assertion silly.

Michael Moore is not the only one who has suggested that AOC is the ipso facto leader of the Democrats. When it comes from the right it is certainly meant to be derisive toward the Democrats and it is rubbish of course, but she and a number of other newcomers are having an effect on the Party.

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I understand you are thinking about 2020 but this whole thing where you just totally ignore previous candidates, statistics, etc and just ponder about some mythical 2020 candidate with a special type of centrist charisma is getting old. There is zero precedence for a centrist, moderate, charismatic, or etc (all relative labels) influencing how people vote. I have asked you for example and you have concede none come to mind.

 

There never has been a charismatic centrist moderate independent candidate. So we don't know how they might haver effected past results never mind in 2020. The best we can do is make an educated guess. Can you not at least concede that it has never been tried?

I think we would both agree that one should cut well into the right if Trump has the Republican ticket. How many votes will Trump likely deserve? Not that deserves got anything to do with it...(I will refrain from posting a Clint Eastwood meme image)...and clearly he would get more than he should.

We would obviously disagree with what the Democrats deserve if they concentrate only on the left, and getting out the vote by inciting discord, no matter how they justify it. We agree that the tactic would probably work, they will get into power, do their thing...and then have the pendulum swing the other way.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Michael Moore is not the only one who has suggested that AOC is the ipso facto leader of the Democrats.

This thread, started by you, asks about the potential of a moderate 3rd party candidate and the Democratic Primary. AOC is NOT running for POTUS as a Democrat or independent. She is superfluous to this conversation. Insisting she is a leader in the Democratic party isn't helpful to this conversation. You asked me if a moderate could win the nomination. AOC will not be the Democratic nominee for 2020. We BOTH know that. So let's stay on topic. AOC has nothing to do with this thread. Yes a moderate can will the Democratic Primary. I already quantified it for you with examples of it happening. I also provided you an example of how bipartisan Booker has been throughout his career working with Republicans in NJ. It is Booker who is running and not AOC. 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There never has been a charismatic centrist moderate independent candidate.

This is a statement of opinion. These traits are relative to one persons individual preference. That is what you seems to not understand. No candidate has ever been those things because no candidate ever could be those things. At least not to a large enough majority to win. With that said Politicians have tried. As previously stated Kerry and Gore tried to run unity tickets with VP's who were center right. It didn't change anything. It didn't impact how people voted.

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

think we would both agree that one should cut well into the right if Trump has the Republican ticket. How many votes will Trump likely deserve? Not that deserves got anything to do with it...(I will refrain from posting a Clint Eastwood meme image)...and clearly he would get more than he should.

No, we both don't agree on this. 98% of the people who voted Trump in 16' will be voting for him again in 20' provided they are able to. NOTHING any opponent can do will change that in my opinion. The numbers simply never move more that a percentage point or two election bro election. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

45 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This thread, started by you, asks about the potential of a moderate 3rd party candidate and the Democratic Primary. AOC is NOT running for POTUS as a Democrat or independent. She is superfluous to this conversation. Insisting she is a leader in the Democratic party isn't helpful to this conversation. You asked me if a moderate could win the nomination. AOC will not be the Democratic nominee for 2020. We BOTH know that. So let's stay on topic. AOC has nothing to do with this thread. Yes a moderate can will the Democratic Primary. I already quantified it for you with examples of it happening. I also provided you an example of how bipartisan Booker has been throughout his career working with Republicans in NJ. It is Booker who is running and not AOC. 

 

You are off base:

1. Who is insisting that AOC is leader of the Democrats? Read my post again and take your time. I clearly stated that the notion was rubbish, however, if it is out there.

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Michael Moore is not the only one who has suggested that AOC is the ipso facto leader of the Democrats. When it comes from the right it is certainly meant to be derisive toward the Democrats and it is rubbish of course, but she and a number of other newcomers are having an effect on the Party.

 

You not understanding the point does not mean it is off topic. It is very much on topic. She does not need to get the Democrat ticket to influence who does, and the way the Democrats are positioned in 2020. You may very well not agree with the idea that she and others will no doubt have an influence on the debate and nominee, you may even be correct though I would say that is very unlikely....but that still does not make it off topic. You don't get to set the parameters as to how I base my opinion on the topic.

I don't do that to you. I agree where I agree. Where I don't...I don't claim it is irrelevant and therefore off topic.

[Ten oz]

41 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who is insisting that AOC is leader of the Democrats? Read my post again and take your time. I clearly stated that the notion was rubbish, however, if it is out there.

Why are you bringing her up at all? You asked me if I thought a moderate could win the nomination. I said yes. Then you asked if I believed the part had moved to the left. The context of the specific exchange we were having was related to the Democratic nomination per this thread's topic. AOC isn't running for the nomination. There isn't a reason for her to have been brought up.

The ONLY Politicians I have brought into this conversation are ones who ran as 3rd party candidates or received major party nominations. I am not randomly bringing up House members, Media personalities, and etc. It only confusing this discussion to do so. 

41 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

She does not need to get the Democrat ticket to influence who does, and the way the Democrats are positioned in 2020. 

This is nonsense. Rather than evaluating the candidates who are running you are bending the conversation towards those who aren't running but theoretically might have an impact. It is ridiculous. The evaluation of how moderate Booker, Harris, Castro, and Gillbrand are or are not  don't need to be ran through the filter of AOC and Michael Moore.

The very behavior you are exhibiting by holding a junior house of no consequence up as a major party influencer is one of the many reasons why the charismatic centrist you're hoping for has never existed. People can't see the person over their preconceptions. I explained why I feel Booker is moderate and you responded by posting total nonsense I can't make heads or tails of about AOC. How about we just stick with who is running. How about you explain to me what it is about Harris, Castro, or Booker that isn't moderate enough?

Edited February 8, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Why are you bringing her up at all?

 

It is really simple. 

An independent candidate winning is unlikely.

It was never likely.

However, it could become more likely than ever before.

1. If a good, charismatic, independent runs in the centre.

2. If the Democrats move far enough from the centre.

3. If Trump continues being Trump.

Which one of these might have the most influence? (hint: the bolded one)

Which one of these if being discussed would AOCs name most likely come up. (hint: the bolded one)