Ten oz

This is the rub isn't it? Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections, represent 40 million more constituents in the Senate yet are in the minority, just won the House vote by the highest margin of any mid term in 30 years, endorse policies that have majority public support, and etc yet people attempt to argue there are not politicians occupying the center. The truth is that the electoral system currently favors the minority party. It is insanity to me that Democrats in the Senate represent 40 million more people yet are in the minority. Moderate policies and centrist positions can't exist in such an imbalanced system. Clinton got millions of more votes and lost. Democracy and how it translate to representation is unequal in the U.S. and no amount of politicians pandering to the center will fix that.

In my opinion, none. I have already explained my reasoning. Do you believe Democrats currently have any moderate candidates running? If not why not what specific policies are too far to the left? You have thus far avoided commenting on any of the positions and policies held by a single Democrat that's running. You say "if " they move yet don't seem interested in where they are in the first place.

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. 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?

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

Who is claiming this?

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?

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?

@J.C.MacSwell I don't think what you are describing could work here in the states. Canada and the U.S. have different systems. The others positions you outline align with where Democratic leadership already is. So if that is your definition of moderate we (USA) already have a moderate party. As for 3rd party candidates the most successful one ever was George Wallace. He carried 5 states and won 46 electoral votes. That is more states won and electoral votes received than the losing major party candidate in 72' or 88'. In 80' Jimmy Carter (incumbent) won 6 states and 49 electoral votes. Wallace is far and away the most successful 3rd party candidate every. His platform was centered around hatred of hippies and civil rights. It was not a moderate one. Successful (had an impact in the general election) 3rd party candidates have never served the role of balance between existing parties or moderation. They succeed by fomenting dissatisfaction. Wallace was so successful that his language continues to be used in Political circles to this day 50yrs later. The below Wallace qoute made from the campaign trail in 1968 reads like it was written yesterday.

I don't know what Two Teir means with regards to healthcare. Only Trump wants a wall. Bush, Reagan, Romney, McCain, etc never campaigned for a wall. It isn't a left vs right issue. It is a Trump issue. When Trump is gone you won't here about a Wall ever again On every issue minus Trump's wall and perhaps healthcare (not sure about Two Teir) your notion of moderate is exactly where the Democratic party is. By the definition you just provided every establishment Democrat is moderate.

That makes more sense. I touched on it some earlier but political coalitions have a huge impact on issues. On the right gun lobbies have formed coalitions with white evangelicals Together they have more influence. As a result guns and abortion, totally separate issues, are uniformly handled. Candidates only have so much wiggle room before they are crossing coalition lines. Both sides of a physical fence might be the same but what's beyond that fence in either direction isn't. A fence on a cliff for example.

The govt cuts one is misleading in my opinion. Republicans always increase spending when they are in power.

There isn't a singlular definition for what a moderate candidate is. It is relative. Can you provide a single policy being promoted by any polician which doesn't address or more directly impact a specific identifiable group of people? 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?

How McCain handled it was to going around campaign with Palin for months. People were bringing signs that read "white slavery"and "Obama Bin Lyin" to his campaign rallies. McCain's and Obama's relationship remained cold for years. McCain was a critic of Obama's. Obama speaking at McCain's funeral was more an example of how gracious Obama is than it was anything else. It wasn't until McCain started fielding criticism from the right that he stopped attacking Obama. Let's not forget that by 2015 it was Trump attacking McCain saying he preferred war heroes who weren't captured. The political landscape change and McCain was being rejected on the right. That is what Palin and other Mccain campaign surrogates did. The short clip you posted doesn't undo months worth of fear-mongering based on islamophobia and racism. Anyway here is a light statistical breakdown from Nate Sliver (statistician) on Schultz running as a Fiscal Conservative Social Liberal (FCSL). Link Take aways from Sliver's piece is that FCSL represents 16% of all voters and is not nearly a big enough block to win with, this group went Trump in 2016, and the way this group feels about race and healthcare are the biggest predictors for how they vote.

Not that is will end Trump's presidency but is it more trouble. I think the more legal trouble Trump and those around him face the higher the likelihood he cuts a deal to steps down and be pardoned. Also Cohen, Flynn, Papadopoulos, Manafort, Stone and etc have all be indicted over stuff dealing with the campaign. Another full round of campaigning may open up more cans of worms. Before Trump was a private citizen when his people met with Russians at Trump Tower and etc. What are the legal ramifications of a sitting President being approach by foriegn agency and not reporting it to his own Intelligence Agencies or State Department?

I am not sure what your context is exactly. Identifiable groups are identifiable groups. There are numerous religions in the world and depending on your definition of race (something biological, national, historical, etc) there are numerous races. I have no idea what your definitions of these things are. My point about Palin is that she linked Obama to terrorism and implied he was soft on terrorism throughout the 2008 campaign and stoked those very fears McCain addressed in your clip. It was McCain's very own campaign putting those notions in people's heads.

...and who did McCain select as his VP that Campaign?

Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton didn't have an affair with an intern. Being the person who does a bad thing and being the person who forgives a bad thing aren't equal. My wife forgives my stupidity all the time. She's a saint! My criticisms of Biden weren't that he forgave someone who did the things I listened. Joe Biden was the person who did those things. When Obama ran in 2008 he wasn't for marriage equality. He was pro civil union. He publicly stated many times marriage per his faith was between a man and a woman. That was just 10yrs ago and today that position would be untenable for a national Democratic candidate. Untenable even for many Republicans. Likewise with the ACA (Obamacare). Obama pushed the ACA because universal coverage was too big a leap, too partisan, and unpopular. Today medicare for all or some other form of universal coverage is a bipartisan talking point pitched by politicians all over the spectrum. The political environment which had stayed relatively the same for 30yrs (Reagan - Clinton- Bush jr) has changed rapidly over the last 6yrs or so. Not merely on the left but on the right as well. Paul Ryan, John Boehner, John McCain, Jeff Sessions, and etc people who helped define the Republican party over the last couple decades are all gone now. On the left Pelosi had to fight for speakership and this session (Congress sessions are 2yrs) will almost definitely be her last. There is a new political generation wait in the wings and holding them back any longer would be mistake.

I have not said anything about targeting people based on race. Moderates don't hold positions which can be indentified?

Political environments change over time. Populations change as well. Social media has changed the way people consume information, automation has changed manufacturing, education has changed opportunity and competitiveness in the workplace, the U.S. is more Diverse, and etc, etc ,etc. We live in a different world than when Biden came up through the ranks. Biden has had his time. I think his time has past. His treatment of Anita Hill for example while applauded for it's faux bipartisanship at the time was a disgustly sexist display. He has applogized but it is just the tip of the iceberg. Biden also supported steeper punishments for crack cocaine vs cociane which was a racist policy the disproportionately hurt poor and minority communities. Biden has apologized for that too. There are too many things for Biden to apologise for, too much history, and too many other quality candidates I hope Biden does run. I certainly won't be voting for him in the Democratic Primary.

That isn't what I have commented on. Rather I pointed out that only white voters, a small portion of them at that, vote for third party candidates. We can talk about being centrist, moderate, charismatic, and etc all we want but those are relative descriptions that have no absolute definition in political environments. They mean something different to everyone individual. For example I think Cory Booker is the most moderate Democrat in the Primary currently yet I have seen you describe him in extremist terms claiming he advocates violence. A third party candidate can't win on white votes alone and those are the only votes they have gotten in previous election. Left vs right has made no difference. Which politicians don't practice identity politics???? When a politician supports the NRA they pandering to gun owners. When they qoute the Bible at campaign rallies they are pandering to Christians. When they talk about solar and wind they are pandering to environmentalists. Every politician panders to the identity of their voting base. I have never seen a politician who didn't. If you have please give me a name so I can read about them.