J.C.MacSwell

One thing to keep in mind. Rough figures, there are 10 times as many Americans as Canadians. Multiply by 10 all the questionable things attributed to Canadians and you get a fairer comparison...also as you mentioned...three main political parties...if two get in a pissing match the third makes hay in the Sun.

Everyday I remind myself how lucky I am not have been born in Canada and grown up as a Canadian... ...but I'm also thankful for having grown up as a North American. There are problems everywhere. We are fortunate to have to deal with First World ones.

It does bother me when she tells some of us to go back where we came from... ...oh wait...she doesn't do that.

Aren't you guys busy enough buying Greenland?

So...the bottles are still there? intact?

Must be quite the theory... ...but well done if you recognize this is not the place for it.

After (like it would ever happen) Trump bought Greenland? He would be the most inciteful (not a typo) climate change guru...saw it coming when few did...ice melting visionary...ever!

LOL no... "Go ice melt go! Look how smart I was"? Yes.

I somehow think Trump's "green new deal" is a non starter...

Castro has made the Fall debates:

Light sure takes it's good ol' time!

That makes more sense. I suspected that was what you really meant to say... Good post with that cleared up. I would tend to agree. It is just a shame if pushed so far left...lots of ammunition for Trump as I am sure he will try to hold them to it (which is fair if he does)

I don't think that's necessary. Is it fair to assume Musk just made that up and that there is no such registry? Or is there such a thing? I tried google but nothing clear one way or the other...

+1 Perfect logic requires the right assumptions, and we can't be absolutely sure about the ones we have taken on.

Good post. Just wondering about your thinking on this part. It seems to contradict (or tend to go against) what you are saying in the rest. (not with regard to positioning economics left of immigration but the far left part) Other news: Looks like Elon Musk is onboard... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/12/elon-musk-tweets-support-of-democrat-presidential-hopeful-andrew-yang.html One question: He describes himself as a registered independent...what the heck is that?

No. It is the current reality from which to move forward. AKA...good starting point...

...as a starting point.

I'm saying it is a better starting point. I never said it was optimal. That could very well be to the left, but it gets harder and harder to make a case the further left you stray. Slightly left may mean progress if done well and lead to better outcomes, but there are limits, and not just in terms of what society is ready for and will accept. So far no one has suggested any position better than the median, other than a vague implication that it is to the left of it, or in fact far enough left to avoid "no man's land" in the middle, which I consider highly suspect. For the Democrats that relies on Trump continuing to be rude and narcissistic (a reasonable assumption) but also being able to paint him as a White Supremacist.

Assuming the graphs correctly scaled the left and right on each issue: And assuming very few of the voters were near the median on both issues: How do you take advantage of that knowledge? If I pick a position at the median for each (which could be the same position depending on how the graphs correlate) Where do you go to do better? The premise is that the Democrat positions, well to the left of centre, have less scatter...so by picking there you have more "happy" voters... So do you pick there? If so, by trying to maximize "happy voters", you have positioned yourself much more objectionably for most. ...and unnecessarily...since a position closer to the median would keep all your same voters and cut into mine... under your assumption: The main problem with this weak position (too far left of the median) for the 2020 election is that it is a strong one for the Primaries. Some Democrats recognize this (thus the support for Biden) but too many don't know or don't care (thus the support for Warren and Sanders) The main problem with the median is that, though a generally more agreeable position, it may not get people motivated enough to actually vote for you... but having your single opponent stray far enough from it may provide that motivation for you

How? How can you possibly choose positions on both...to one side or the other of the median in each case...that makes you inherently better off to any significant extent? You can only choose one position on each in this one dimensional analysis. Any spot you pick for each is "lonely" if you only consider voters that will agree 100% with your position. (the median positions, including all potential voters, are not far from the highest points) Why do you feel straying markedly from the median will give you an advantage over your single opponent taking the median positions on these issues? Is the assumption that no one votes unless they are fully happy with both positions? If that's the case I think the author is suggesting the parties "play themselves" (in the case of the Democrat's that's probably the case...though they still could win but only because Trump is such an ass)

Positions. plural. If I pick the median position of the combined economic graph, and independently, the median position on the combined immigration graph. Where do you counter to get your huge advantage? (assuming you have to take a stance and choose a position on each)

I just try to be a better person today than I was yesterday. That's the key to my success... ...setting the bar low

If you combined those graphs to include Dems, Independants and Republicans, and then picked median positions...you would be in a pretty healthy spot to attract voters if in competition with one other competitor that had to pick one side or the other at any discernible distance from your positions. All other factors being equal (which of course they aren't) if you've lost out on 80% of potential voters your opponent must lose that also...or more. This is generally true unless voters are somewhat indifferent on some policies and more passionate on others.

Yes. But much more plausible in a Yang administration.

+1. To me the "we" is often lobbied politicians. The rules should be for the benefit of the public, where business is used as a tool to get those better outcomes.