J.C.MacSwell

Independent run for POTUS 2020

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

:rolleyes:

To my understanding "LOL" means Laughing Out Loud. Please correct me if you meant something else. 

That was not with regard to your point, that was with regard to INow's characterization of a slight majority as a vast one...a "slight" overreach to put it mildly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, beecee said:

In Australia we have a system of Preferential voting which is a system of voting that allows a citizen to individually number and rank all candidates for both houses of parliament according to their preferences. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/explainer-what-is-preferential-voting  Such a process enables a two-party system to ultimately emerge, whereby all votes are effectively divided between two major parties – in this case, the Labor and Liberal parties.

The problem isn't a lack of good solutions. The problem exists intentionally and not as an accidental artifact of our electoral system. For example one small change Democrats proposed was to make election day a federal holiday to give more people the opportunity to vote. Never mind compulsory voting like in Australia. Democrats just wanted to give people the day off to vote in the event they choose to vote. In 2016 voter turnout was just 55% of eligible voters after all. Republicans pushed back calling a federal voting holiday a "power grab" and labeled it the "Democratic Political Protection Act". It is well understood by Republicans that if more people vote Democrats will win more elections. 

Quote

 

McConnell took to the Senate floor Wednesday to rail against HR 1, the sweeping anti-corruption proposal House Democrats have put forward as their first bill in the majority. Among many other measures, it proposes making Election Day a federal holiday and encourages private sector businesses to do the same.

McConnell, who calls the bill the “Democratic Politician Protection Act,” sees that as a “power grab.”

“Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work ... [on Democratic] campaigns,” he snarked on the Senate floor. “This is the Democrat plan to restore democracy? ... A power grab.” Link

 

 

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@J.C.MacSwell Republicans have only won the popular vote by 2.1%  once  since 1988, over thirty years worth of Presidential elections. The 9.6% popular vote margin House Democrats just experienced has never been accomplished by Republicans. You laugh at the suggestion these number are significant yet they are out of reach for Republicans. The average margins for Democrats is beyond the best Republicans have been able to do over the last few decades. 

 

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That was not with regard to your point, that was with regard to INow's characterization of a slight majority as a vast one...a "slight" overreach to put it mildly

I did quote anything leading into that post. It was directed @ you specifically and not attached to any previous exchange we had. So I have no idea which one of the numerous points I have made you are even referencing when you say "your point". iNow brought up the 2.1%, not me. So I thought by referencing it I was making clear what you had laughed at. 

It isn't an overreach in my opinion because Democrats are winning the popular vote at levels Republicans cannot. Relative to Republicans it is big. Winning the popular vote by 2.1% would be a massive win for a Republican. I have no idea if Trump will be on the ballot in 2020 or wins re-election if he is but I am willing to say it's damn near an absolute certainty Trump won't win the popular vote by 2.1% or better. It is highly unlikely he'd win the popular period. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It isn't an overreach in my opinion because Democrats are winning the popular vote at levels Republicans cannot. Relative to Republicans it is big. Winning the popular vote by 2.1% would be a massive win for a Republican. I have no idea if Trump will be on the ballot in 2020 or wins re-election if he is but I am willing to say it's damn near an absolute certainty Trump won't win the popular vote by 2.1% or better. It is highly unlikely he'd win the popular period. 

You are suggesting that the use of the term "vast majority" to characterize something that is a not even a slight majority, but actually a plurality by 2.1% is not an overreach?

Because reasons? 

44 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The problem isn't a lack of good solutions. The problem exists intentionally and not as an accidental artifact of our electoral system. For example one small change Democrats proposed was to make election day a federal holiday to give more people the opportunity to vote. Never mind compulsory voting like in Australia. Democrats just wanted to give people the day off to vote in the event they choose to vote. In 2016 voter turnout was just 55% of eligible voters after all. Republicans pushed back calling a federal voting holiday a "power grab" and labeled it the "Democratic Political Protection Act". It is well understood by Republicans that if more people vote Democrats will win more elections. 

I'm all for fairer elections. Don't think I am unconvinced if I don't respond to anything in particular you are saying, or that I don't see the relevance. It would certainly affect where an independent candidate would ideally be positioned.

We have related issues in Canada as well.

In some ways our essentially 3 party system exacerbates the problems and in some ways alleviates them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 10:07 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

1 - What are everyones thoughts on the effect of any independents running for election in 2020? Or even the threat of them running on the political positioning and debate, or who might get the Democrat ticket?

2-Do they have any chance, or what circumstances might allow them to be elected?

3 - Some Democrats seemed quite upset at Howard Schultz suggesting he might run, as he would tend to draw more votes from Democrats than from Trump and that it would also favour Trump in the electoral college voting if there was no clear winner.

4 - My personal point of view is that it would be healthy to have someone moderate stating the case for the so-called middle, especially initially, though the danger would be ultimately drawing voters from one side more than the other, and rendering their votes to be ineffective. If it was the right candidate and they could win, I would be all for it.

1 - Your unwillingness to discuss individuals running for the Democratic ticket subverts discussion which might answer that question. 

2 - We all agree they don't

3 - Schultz claims to be a Fiscally Conservative and Social Liberal. I provided you a link to a statistical analyse of the size of that self identifying group how they vote. The of them majority voted for Trump. 

4 - This view implies there are not currently any moderates running???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ten oz said:

1 - Your unwillingness to discuss individuals running for the Democratic ticket subverts discussion which might answer that question. 

2 - We all agree they don't

3 - Schultz claims to be a Fiscally Conservative and Social Liberal. I provided you a link to a statistical analyse of the size of that self identifying group how they vote. The of them majority voted for Trump. 

4 - This view implies there are not currently any moderates running???

1. There are too many candidates. I expect one to win from the Party centre unless an exceptional moderate can convince them that moderate positions and hopefully less vitriol toward Americans generally would be a wise decision. (but feel free to make your case for one)

2. I have said unlikely. Are you saying impossible?

3. Not everyone needs to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative to vote that way, if the alternatives are considered a worse option.

4. This view implies that no democratic moderate with any likelihood of winning are stating the case for the centre of the American political spectrum. It would be a non starter to do so in todays Democrat Party. Exactly why Schultz would not waste his time running for the Democrat ticket. The centre is at the right fringe of the Democrat Party, just as it is on the left fringe of the GOP. It would take a truly exceptional moderate from either party to get the ticket while positioned on that respective "fringe", even though it is centrist moderate and reasonable to Americans generally...or at least should be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

1. There are too many candidates. I expect one to win from the Party centre unless an exceptional moderate can convince them that moderate positions and hopefully less vitriol toward Americans generally would be a wise decision. (but feel free to make your case for one)

Can you elaborate of your distinction between the Parties center and moderate positions? Also there are currently only 3 candidates running who legitimately might win the nomination:Harris, Booker, and Warren. You think 3 candidates are too many?

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

2. I have said unlikely. Are you saying impossible?

There is a 99.9% chance a 3rd party candidate will not win the 2020 general election. I think everyone involved in this conversation, including yourself, knows that. 

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

3. Not everyone needs to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative to vote that way, if the alternatives are considered a worse option.

In theory I guess. I can attach an "if" to anything and dare you to disprove it. Where are the real world examples?

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

4. This view implies that no democratic moderate with any likelihood of winning are stating the case for the centre of the American political spectrum. It would be a non starter to do so in todays Democrat Party. Exactly why Schultz would not waste his time running for the Democrat ticket. The centre is at the right fringe of the Democrat Party, just as it is on the left fringe of the GOP. It would take a truly exceptional moderate from either party to get the ticket while positioned on that respective "fringe", even though it is centrist moderate and reasonable to Americans generally...or at least should be.

We know and have already discussed that the majority of voters vote Democrat. That Democrats have a significantly more diverse voting base. More diversity in religion, gender, race, education, income, and age. Yet you label that as fringe. Definition of fringe is "a group with marginal or extremist views" link. It is simply inaccurate the party with the broadest appeal and supported by the majority of voters fringe. 

If you like Schultz's policies that is fine. We can discuss Schultz policies. I how no problem with Schultz running and feel he has every right to do so if that's his choice. However I don't think the way you are attempting to characterize Democrats as a fringe as a mean of propping up Schultz as moderate. Fringe is an inaccurate label  to place on the majority and which positions are moderate are relative to ones own preference. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Yet you label that as fringe. Definition of fringe is "a group with marginal or extremist views" link. It is simply inaccurate the party with the broadest appeal and supported by the majority of voters fringe.

It's the "socialist" gaslight the right has fired up for itself to marginalize any liberal or liberal policy.

They're going to parrot it ad nauseam for the next two years. Mark my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Can you elaborate of your distinction between the Parties center and moderate positions? 

The centre position of the Democrat Party doesn't coincide with the centre position of the American political spectrum. It is clearly further to the left. Moderate positions range in the middle of the American political spectrum not the middle of the left or Democrat. 

On the demise of the moderate candidate:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/midterms-2018-future-americas-lonely-moderates/574540/

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 Also there are currently only 3 candidates running who legitimately might win the nomination:Harris, Booker, and Warren. You think 3 candidates are too many?

There are obviously more that are considering entering the race. I would pick the field over the odds of one of those three winning.

 

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There is a 99.9% chance a 3rd party candidate will not win the 2020 general election. I think everyone involved in this conversation, including yourself, knows that.

cWWith the potential for a pretty significant collapse in Trump support, I don't think it is as certain as you suggest. This would be where it could matter where the Democrats find themselves if a moderate candidate enters the race.

 

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

In theory I guess. I can attach an "if" to anything and dare you to disprove it. Where are the real world examples?

In the same place as the real world examples were in 2015 for someone like Trump winning POTUS.

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

On the rargin of the 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It's the "socialist" gaslight the right has fired up for itself to marginalize any liberal or liberal policy.

They're going to parrot it ad nauseam for the next two years. Mark my words.

Trump is a divisive politician. With him it isn't even always partisan. Trump attacks anyone he views as an obstacle to what he wants. He accused Ted Cruz's father of being involved in the Kennedy assassination, mocked John McCain for being a prisoner of war, has repeated called Romney a loser, and etc. Trump is very divisive and him being in the White House has made politics uglier than they have ever been in our lifetimes. Rather than addressing the Trump in the room head on Conservatives skirt the issue. Understand that going after Trump or the Republicans who support Trump would help Democrats they launch into vague generalized attacks on politics as a whole. Trump isn't the problem they say, politics have been broken since long before Trump. They ask us to never mind the guy in the White House who retweets white nationalist videos and focus on the lack of centrists on the left. 

Partisanship was bad during Obama's tenure but everything still worked within the normal margins. There were zero indictments of Obama's admin, unemployment went from 10% down to 4.5% , GDP from negative 2.5% to a positive 2.9% (+5.4% swing), annual deficit went from 1.6 Trillion down to 580 billion, millions of people got healthcare who previously didn't have any, Stock Market sustained growth every year Obama was in office, and etc, etc, etc. No govt is perfect but for Obama's 8yrs govt did worked. Dysfunction wasn't the order of the day. In 8yrs there was one shutdown, in 2013 which lasted 16 days. 

Under Trump there has already been about a hundred indictments, countless cabinet members have already been fire or quit, the annual deficit is up to a trillion dollars and rising, the stock market just had its first Bear Market in a decade, the number of uninsured people has increased by millions, and dysfunction is the order of the day. In 2yrs of Trump there have already by 2 shutdowns lasting a combined 38 days and a 3rd shutdown is looming. 

Discussing all the different ways Democrats or a 3rd party candidate can fix partisanship while ignoring the Trump/Republican contribution is sort of like ignoring a hole in a ships hull and instead critiquing water bailing methods. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

We know and have already discussed that the majority of voters vote Democrat. That Democrats have a significantly more diverse voting base. More diversity in religion, gender, race, education, income, and age. Yet you label that as fringe. Definition of fringe is "a group with marginal or extremist views" link. It is simply inaccurate the party with the broadest appeal and supported by the majority of voters fringe. 

That one.

The Democrat party has a fringe on the left and the right. If you prefer a left margin and right margin. They define the range of the party. I would not label the Democrat Party as either. The right margin is at the centre, not the fringe, of the American political spectrum. I would hardly suggest it is extremist...just a lonely place right now in terms of candidates from either party. (but not in terms of American voters IMO)

Edited by J.C.MacSwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This is an opinion piece written by a Conservative. No polling data, stats, historical context, or etc. Just Elaina Plott's opinion about Democrats. Elaina Plott's other works include "I was a Teenage Ann Coulter Fangirl!"

Quote

I first became a Coulter devotee in high school, when the ambient noise of Fox News around the house began to register some meaning. I started to sit down and listen to these people—Sean Hannity, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Bill O’Reilly. But I liked Coulter best. I liked the way she ran her fingers through her hair while she talked on air, a compelling show of femininity in what was so obviously a boys’ club. I liked that she was punchy and whip-smart and that no one dared talk over her. I decided around then—11th grade, I think it was—that there were few things I wanted more than long hair and an ability to argue about politics. https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/10/05/i-was-a-teenage-ann-coulter-fangirl/

If you are getting your opinions about centrist U.S. policies from Conservative columnist who grew up idolizing to Hannity, O'Reilly, and etc it is no surprise you don't believe there are moderates in the Democratic Party. 

Have I once insulted your intelligence or wasted your time by linking an op-ed written by a partisan staff writer? I have linked data with sourced research not B.S. written by partisan idiots. I assume you are smart enough to know the difference between opinion pieces and population data. I would appreciate it if you paid me the same respect and not link fluff conservative propaganda. 

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

With the potential for a pretty significant collapse in Trump support, I don't think it is as certain as you suggest. This would be where it could matter where the Democrats find themselves if a moderate candidate enters the race.

Based on what? Trump currently enjoys an 88% approval among those who identify as Republican. That is a better approval among Republicans than Reagan or H.W Bush had 2yrs in. It is also a better approval than Obama or Clinton had among Democrats,  Gallup Poll . I don't see a single sign that Trump base will collapse. Trump was at 89% among Republicans when inaugurated and now 2yrs later he is still right there. 

Edited by Ten oz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This is an opinion piece written by a Conservative. No polling data, stats, historical context, or etc. Just Elaina Plott's opinion about Democrats. Elaina Plott's other works include "I was a Teenage Ann Coulter Fangirl!"

If you are getting your opinions about centrist U.S. policies from Conservative columnist who grew up idolizing to Hannity, O'Reilly, and etc it is no surprise you don't believe there are moderates in the Democratic Party. 

Have I once insulted your intelligence or wasted your time by linking an op-ed written by a partisan staff writer? I have linked data with sourced research not B.S. written by partisan idiots. I assume you are smart enough to know the difference between opinion pieces and population data. I would appreciate it if you paid me the same respect and not link fluff conservative propaganda. 

 

 I simply googled American moderate to get you a description. The author may be out to lunch generally. That does not mean she is wrong in this case. She certainly wasn't suggesting the Republicans had moderates either.

Wiki better?


"A political moderate is a person in the center category of the left-right political spectrum."

Note that it does not say centre of the left (or centre of the right), which, surprise surprise, would correspond with the middle of the target for the Democrat Presidential hopefuls...at least at this point. A strong independent candidate could change that target, as should of course winning the Democrat ticket and focusing then on winning POTUS.

Would you not agree that, "all things being equal" (so to speak), closer to the centre of the American political spectrum is a more robust position for the Democrat ticket, than that of mid Party?


 

Edited by J.C.MacSwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 I simply googled American moderate to get you a description. The author may be out to lunch generally. That does not mean she is wrong in this case. She certainly wasn't suggesting the Republicans had moderates either.

Wiki better?


"A political moderate is a person in the center category of the left-right political spectrum.

Note that it does not say centre of the left (or centre of the right), which, surprise surprise, would correspond with the middle of the target for the Democrat Presidential hopefuls...at least at this point. A strong independent candidate could change that target, as should of course winning the Democrat ticket and focusing then on winning POTUS.


 

Quote

 

In recent years, the term "political moderates" has gained traction as a buzzword. The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology. Voters who describe themselves as centrist often mean that they are moderate in their political views, advocating neither extreme left-wing politics nor extreme right-wing politics. Many of the voters are libertarian.

Gallup polling has shown American voters identifying themselves as moderate between 35–38% of the time over the last 20 years.[2]Voters may identify with moderation for a number of reasons: pragmatic, ideological or otherwise. It has even been suggested that individuals vote for centrist parties for purely statistical reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate#Political_position

 

Far as I can tell from Wikipedia the notion of a moderate position is relative to ones own views which is something I have been saying throughout this thread.  

Quote

 

political spectrum is a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions.

Most long-standing spectra include a left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–1799).[1] On a left–right spectrum, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts: sometimes on the left (social liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are sometimes classified as centrists. That said, liberals and neoliberals are often called centrists too. Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is often known as syncretic politics[2][3], though the label tends to mischaracterize positions that have a logical location on a two-axis spectrum because they seem randomly brought together on a one-axis left-right spectrum.

Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between socio-cultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read all that previously. Although somewhat vague it would indicate that significantly less than half of voters, on both right and left, would consider themselves moderates.

The percentage of candidates, of any kind, House, Senate, whatever, would be much less again. To deny that would be to ignore the current level of polarization in American politics.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Based on what? Trump currently enjoys an 88% approval among those who identify as Republican. That is a better approval among Republicans than Reagan or H.W Bush had 2yrs in. It is also a better approval than Obama or Clinton had among Democrats,  Gallup Poll . I don't see a single sign that Trump base will collapse. Trump was at 89% among Republicans when inaugurated and now 2yrs later he is still right there. 

On a number of things. The chances he is impeached alone have to be well over 0.1%. Not that that would guarantee success to an independent candidate...but it would certainly open up some room on the right that a Democrat would be less well positioned to take advantage of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I've read all that previously. Although somewhat vague it would indicate that significantly less than half of voters, on both right and left, would consider themselves moderates.

The percentage of candidates, of any kind, House, Senate, whatever, would be much less again. To deny that would be to ignore the current level of polarization in American politics.

"The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology." The definition of moderate isn't singular. It is relative to the Political Spectrum one seeks to define it in.

"A political spectrum is a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions." and "Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often include other axes.".

So political spectrums are larger than just left and right. For example Clinton won 71% of the Jewish vote and 67% of the Hispanic Catholics vote in 2016, Link. Those 2 groups are independent political axes and not merely left to right. Likewise Clinton won 90% of the Black vote and 65% of the Asian vote, different axes.

As we look at different individual axes it is the Democratic Party which houses the most axes. If we draw a venn diagram with each demographic (religion, age, gender, education, income, race, etc) is represented by a circle the Democratic party exists at the intersection of the most circle. It is an indisputable fact. The Democratic party crosses the most axes which means Democrats are the more moderate party per definitions wiki (you brought wiki into this) give us. It is the Republican party who do not cross axes. If you are interested in see more moderate politicians in the U.S. it's the Republican party who is housing the least axes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

"The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology." The definition of moderate isn't singular. It is relative to the Political Spectrum one seeks to define it in.

"A political spectrum is a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions." and "Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often include other axes.".

So political spectrums are larger than just left and right. For example Clinton won 71% of the Jewish vote and 67% of the Hispanic Catholics vote in 2016, Link. Those 2 groups are independent political axes and not merely left to right. Likewise Clinton won 90% of the Black vote and 65% of the Asian vote, different axes.

As we look at different individual axes it is the Democratic Party which houses the most axes. If we draw a venn diagram with each demographic (religion, age, gender, education, income, race, etc) is represented by a circle the Democratic party exists at the intersection of the most circle. It is an indisputable fact. The Democratic party crosses the most axes which means Democrats are the more moderate party per definitions wiki (you brought wiki into this) give us. It is the Republican party who do not cross axes. If you are interested in see more moderate politicians in the U.S. it's the Republican party who is housing the least axes. 

 

This is more than a little distorted from normal uses of the term "political axes".

Jewish-Americans and Hispanic Catholics are separate demographics. They are not political axes. Nor are African Americans or Asian-Americans.

It is difficult to see what you are trying to say, other than perhaps "Democrat good, Republican bad".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It is difficult to see what you are trying to say, other than perhaps "Democrat good, Republican bad".

Seriously, THAT’S what you took away from that post?!? Wowzers

One side is a big diverse tent, the other is a narrow white male tent... is perhaps a simplified version, in case that helps. 

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iNow said:

Seriously, THAT’S what you took away from that post?!? Wowzers

 I got out of it that Ten oz was using a very suspect use of the term "political axes", and as it was all seemingly based on that,  I really could not follow it. 

But congratulations if you did. He agrees with your use of the term "vast majority" for a slight majority or plurality.

So I guess I am simply not up to speed on your Orwellian doublespeak.

/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re a bit of a bomb thrower. I treat you with respect. You, however, toss labels like leftist at me, seem compelled to insert division and wedges into every post you make, and accuse me of Orwellian double speak all while claiming some arbitrary high ground of moderation you don’t exemplify yourself. I’m not interested in helping you continue to set fires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The centre position of the Democrat Party doesn't coincide with the centre position of the American political spectrum. It is clearly further to the left.

So you are going to ignore that from your own list there is a substantial element alignment with what is considered the progressive (i.e. non-moderate) program? Also the fact that both parties offer policies that are on the conservative side of things as they judge their constituency more conservative then they are. Also the fact that in the article you linked one of the issue is simply that moderate politicians may just not be sufficiently aligned with what voters ultimately want?

To explain the issue it is probably worthwhile to point out that labels such as moderate are ultimately not helpful. The reason is that there is a significant gap in self-identification and desired policies. For example, while many minority communities share strong overlap in terms of social conservative ideologies, which could include aspects like the role of women, abortion, role of religion, LGBT issues etc. they tend to vote Democratic as a whole. The reason here is that for many the GOP stance toward immigrants and minorities can be seen as  soft (or even hard) threat to them which is a disincentive for them to vote GOP.  Likewise an astonishingly high number of especially low- middle income Republican voters are strongly in favour of medicare and/or universal health coverage. Yet clearly the GOP was hard on against it. They likely have to pivot now, though, as it seemingly only slowly dawns them that they were leaving their voters behind.

While there is clearly a party bias, the US population as a whole is astonishingly comfortable with progressive stances (and again, as reflected with your previous list) and as such, the political continuum as represented by both parties is not representative for the spectrum found in voters. This does not mean that there is a space for moderates. As mentioned before, the moderate would have to pick and choose not from the middle spectrum, but it would be squarely in the moderate to left part of the Democratic party. The other option would try to obtain votes from the hardcore left or right base (no Immgration of Muslims, but with free healthcare for all!), which is likely not going to work for a large number of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So you are going to ignore that from your own list there is a substantial element alignment with what is considered the progressive (i.e. non-moderate) program? Also the fact that both parties offer policies that are on the conservative side of things as they judge their constituency more conservative then they are. Also the fact that in the article you linked one of the issue is simply that moderate politicians may just not be sufficiently aligned with what voters ultimately want?

To explain the issue it is probably worthwhile to point out that labels such as moderate are ultimately not helpful. The reason is that there is a significant gap in self-identification and desired policies. For example, while many minority communities share strong overlap in terms of social conservative ideologies, which could include aspects like the role of women, abortion, role of religion, LGBT issues etc. they tend to vote Democratic as a whole. The reason here is that for many the GOP stance toward immigrants and minorities can be seen as  soft (or even hard) threat to them which is a disincentive for them to vote GOP.  Likewise an astonishingly high number of especially low- middle income Republican voters are strongly in favour of medicare and/or universal health coverage. Yet clearly the GOP was hard on against it. They likely have to pivot now, though, as it seemingly only slowly dawns them that they were leaving their voters behind.

While there is clearly a party bias, the US population as a whole is astonishingly comfortable with progressive stances (and again, as reflected with your previous list) and as such, the political continuum as represented by both parties is not representative for the spectrum found in voters. This does not mean that there is a space for moderates. As mentioned before, the moderate would have to pick and choose not from the middle spectrum, but it would be squarely in the moderate to left part of the Democratic party. The other option would try to obtain votes from the hardcore left or right base (no Immgration of Muslims, but with free healthcare for all!), which is likely not going to work for a large number of reasons.

Good post. I will try to respond to this later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iNow said:

One side is a big diverse tent, the other is a narrow white male tent... is perhaps a simplified version, in case that helps. 

Seems the size of the tent and how many views are welcome within it are irrelevant to his concept of moderate politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Based on what? Trump currently enjoys an 88% approval among those who identify as Republican. That is a better approval among Republicans than Reagan or H.W Bush had 2yrs in. It is also a better approval than Obama or Clinton had among Democrats,  Gallup Poll . I don't see a single sign that Trump base will collapse. Trump was at 89% among Republicans when inaugurated and now 2yrs later he is still right there. 

Another metric you have to look at is how many people identify as republicans. A higher popularity rating does not necessarily mean more people.

"The percentage of people who identify as or lean Republican has fallen 5 points from 42 percent of the population to 37 percent, according to the poll comparing November 2016 with November 2017"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-percentage-drops-gallup_us_5a2dbf49e4b069ec48ae6aec 

So while the base is not necessarily "collapsing", it is a smaller group. 5 percentage points in a voting population of 250 million people is 12.5 million people for whom this approval rating can no longer be applied (and represents a ~12% drop in this republican base)

What's unknown is how these people feel, but one might guess that if they no longer identify as republican, the majority's reason might just be dissatisfaction with Trump. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CharonY said:

Likewise an astonishingly high number of especially low- middle income Republican voters are strongly in favour of medicare and/or universal health coverage. Yet clearly the GOP was hard on against it. They likely have to pivot now, though, as it seemingly only slowly dawns them that they were leaving their voters behind.

Trump literally campaigned that his healthcare would cover everyone and the Govt would pay it. Trump also campaigned that the rich should by more taxes.

Quote

 

"It’s going to cost me a fortune, which is actually true," the Republican presidential front-runner candidate told reporters, as he unveiled a bold — and fairly detailed — tax plan, under which half of Americans would pay no federal income tax and the rich would face closed loopholes and slashed deductions. Link

 

When a Democrat talks about govt provided healthcare or taxing the rich it is labelled as leftist extremism. When a Republican does the same it is casually forgotten about. 

The reason Trump said the govt would provide healthcare and tax the rich is because those are popular ideas supported across the country by a vast majority of the population. 

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Another metric you have to look at is how many people identify as republicans. A higher popularity rating does not necessarily mean more people.

"The percentage of people who identify as or lean Republican has fallen 5 points from 42 percent of the population to 37 percent, according to the poll comparing November 2016 with November 2017"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-percentage-drops-gallup_us_5a2dbf49e4b069ec48ae6aec 

Which poll is being used matters too. The Huffington Post link you provided is using a Gallup Poll which looks only Republican and Democrat. In the Gallup Polling which includes Independent as an option, Link Here there is no change. That Gallop Poll shows that as of January of this year 25% of the population identify as Republican. That number is unchanged from the summer before the 2016 election or even from the 2012 election. 

So the poll you cited most likely reflects less of a clear leaning among a small percent of those who identify as independent. However that group isn't Trump's base. So while it is possible that Trump's overall pool of potential 2020 voters might be smaller it is also still accurate to say his base hasn't gone anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 In the Gallup Polling which includes Independent as an option, Link Here there is no change. That Gallop Poll shows that as of January of this year 25% of the population identify as Republican. That number is unchanged from the summer before the 2016 election or even from the 2012 election. 

While these look flatter, the summer before the election the numbers are never below 27%. Also, "lean democrat/republican" is not the same as party affiliation. They are asking a different question. The Huffington poll would include independents. So, like I said, his base is not "collapsing" but his support is significantly smaller than it used to be.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now