J.C.MacSwell

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. 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.

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?

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)

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/ There are obviously more that are considering entering the race. I would pick the field over the odds of one of those three winning. 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. In the same place as the real world examples were in 2015 for someone like Trump winning POTUS. On the rargin of the

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.

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? 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.

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

Warren is in: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/elizabeth-warren-presidential-campaign-launched-1.5012915

Good thing I'm not the "mythical Independent" we are discussing. (but make no mistake, by "leftist overreach" I meant exactly that, it's something that many believed helped get Trump get elected, myself included, though I certainly did not see it at the time) It is a good point though. I think the hypothetical independent should leave the hyperbole to the left and right. Their platform might take more time to build, but at least it would not collapse like a house of cards. Add "thick skin" and "precise speech" to my wishful thinking list.

Do I laugh? After agreeing with your point, I emphasized it by pointing out that your current system could theoretically skew results against even a vast majority. A slight majority of 2,1% is certainly significant. It doesn't require leftist overreaching to call it a "vast majority" to make that point. To your credit you didn't, even if you struggle with interpreting my reply. One would have to twist those words pretty hard to suggest I laughed at your suggestion. I guess if you can do that, and accept "vast majority" to be the same thing as a slight one then you are all set for the 2020 political debate.

LOL at nickle and dime. A majority by 2.1% is no where close to the mainstream definition of "vast majority". Vast majority is a non specific term...but it isn't that non specific. I was the one that introduced the term here. Don't quote me out of context with some hyperbolic use of the term. ...that's simply not accepted usage, and clearly not what I was referring to.

...given that any middle position is completely untenable...

Join the polarization...you know you want to...

Vast majority is fairly non specific but I would say not.

Agree. The Senate doesn't represent equal voting rights for every voter, and the electoral college system really doesn't either. Theoretically you could lose the election with the vast majority of votes.

Perhaps the OP could retype it while not being caned...

Right. Let's say you had 2 parties only and each had 50 % support each spread along a linear continuum, and let's say their members were distributed similarly, and would always vote based on closest candidate to their views, same as the voting public. One side would elect a candidate at the 25 percentile, the other at 75, and the election would be 50/50 or decided by a "chad" or two. (or by "cheating" the system and electing a candidate at say the 30th or 70th percentile) Along comes an independent, who positions themselves at 50th percentile. The Independent would then get 25% of the vote, with the Parties candidates getting 37.5% each. In the event of collapse on one side (or both) the independent could win, though this is unlikely. Of course this doesn't happen, the public is not split evenly nor linearly, voters vote on Party lines, strategically at times both in the Primaries and in the Election, and candidates do their best to try to obscure their positions etc. and seem closer to the centre of the voting public after getting the Party ticket...and unfortunately insult and attack their opponent when they do the same. Great sport...I guess, and when they come out of it they hope to get a chance to get something done, if only to have something to point at in the next round... But the point is that the elements of game theory are still all there, despite all the "noise" and it takes an exceptional candidate to get the Party ticket while positioned away from the Party middle...the further from the Party middle the more exceptional the requirement.

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)

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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

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

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)

"Theses are great walls...really big walls...clearly they demonstrate I was right all along...you don't see anyone coming in over them...I accomplished more in 3 years than any President ever..in fact I already had after 2 years...it was a great victory...a really great victory as everyone knows... ...but enough about me...what do you think Hilary?"

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.