J.C.MacSwell

Sorry about that. I certainly read that wrong. 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) (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?

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.

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.

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". 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)

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. 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.

If the worst of Trump is the bar, you haven't set a very high one. But doesn't that support my point that there should be a pretty wide chasm in the mid ground for an Independent? Should be is bolded as I would agree with Ten oz that there likely isn't.

Our system is far from perfect. I'm not suggesting you copy it exactly. I just don't believe a one tier system is appropriate. Not everyone wants the same coverage but most are happy that basic coverage is universal. While I did mention some specifics, most of my points were fairly vague as to how far they should go.. Many Republicans could agree with them also IMO. Others feel that taxes are just stealing their money at gunpoint. I think part of the problem is that many on the Left think that all inequities that remain today should be fixed by the government, often at the expense of personal freedoms. Some actually invoke racism in their fight against racism, and sexism to fight sexism. Wallace's words were inappropriate at that time. Today, you have people actually claiming that minorities cannot discriminate racially, which is garbage. They should recognize racial discrimination by minorities is generally less of a problem (due to the obvious difference in numbers) and focus on solutions based on that, but they don't...and it hurts there cause...which is just...due to their tactics...which are sometimes deplorable...and often simply racist at their core by any normal definition. In their defence maybe they don't see it, but that doesn't help matters. It's a prime example of negative identity politics and does nothing toward genuine solutions, which are much harder to generate.

That's part of the base level. In Canada you can pay extra, or use insurance, to get some extra services and prescription drugs, which generally are not covered. You can also go to the States and pay for procedures that are not covered or to reduce your waiting time. Where do you live where you pay a premium for emergency services? I know Medicare is provincially run, and the system is a little different in each province. In Nova Scotia you can pay a small fee to use a private clinic to reduce waiting time for some non emergency concerns. While many Canadians are now born in hospitals, most are born in the wild:

Two Tier means a base level that everyone gets for free (paid for by taxes) and everything beyond is paid for personally or by personal insurance etc.

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.

It might be a little OT, but was originally intended as my suggesting that avoiding the polarizing rhetoric of identity politics could be a key advantage for a moderate independent candidate. Feel free to open a thread about it. I will take part. I do think there is an asymmetry in the type of identity politics played by both sides. I don't like either. So I would like to see a more moderate candidate get the Democrat ticket, and a much more statesmanlike/stateswomanlike candidate on the right...or barring that both parties getting what they deserve...and losing to a quality independent (as unlikely as that may be).

The first link, including what you quoted by McCain, seems pretty innocuous by todays standards. The title "Obama snubbed me" was I think the journalist's summarization, not anything McCain actually said. I didn't see anything surprising. The second link is interesting. Thank you.

I'm not condoning that. Palin was not my example, and I don't know enough about how McCain handled that. I do know that Obama spoke at McCain's funeral and spoke well of him. They seemed to have had some mutual respect. My context: Identity politics is about making these divisions for political purposes in a negative way, often pitting one group against another. Compare with trying to identify issues of an identifiable group for the purpose of finding solutions. Even if done in a political manner this is not necessarily negative. Even if elements of identity politics are present.

Is this a quiz or a rhetorical question? How is that choice more identity politics (as I defined my context) than appeasing identifiable groups? (not a rhetorical question...I don't know the answer either way)

I think there is a huge difference in the type of identity politics focused on divisiveness and animosity between races and those of different genders or religions, and that of broader issued based politics, even if aimed at appeasing certain identifiable groups. So in that regard I give you John McCain: I agree. You mentioned whites have been the ones that have historically voted for independents. I was the one that brought up targeting moderates by not basing it on race. I wasn't accusing you of anything. What would you suggest for a strategy for an independent moderate candidate?

You have also pointed out that an independent is unlikely to win. While not disagreeing, I am outlining what I consider a plausible scenario. I think it requires more than targeting moderates based on their racial demographics, which I think would be less effective generally than doing the same with those on the right or left. Regardless of political positions, attempts to incite mobs of people to "get in the faces" of his political opponents is uncalled for, unhelpful, and dangerous, IMO. I don't remember describing him in extremist terms or advocating violence anything beyond that. My point was with regard to moderate voters, not the politicians themselves.

Attempting to appeal to moderates base on their racial demographic seems a little off base IMO. I would think they would be less inclined to attraction to identity politics than the current right and left.

The scenario where I would see it most likely (unlikely as it may be) would be: 1. A charismatic centrist candidate that is very effective, and accurate, with modern media 2. Where you have a significant collapse of Trump support, for any or a good number of reasons, when it is to late for the GOP to replace him 3. The Democrats overextend to the left, with party and candidate opposing Trump without a balanced platform, and having given themselves little room to adjust 4. The American voters tiring of the right/left talking points and polarized views If "1" can be found, 2,3 and 4 are already in place to at least some degree. Even if it seems at this point it would be extremely unlikely...who saw Trump ever being elected POTUS in early 2015? If that is the only demographic they could appeal to, I would not expect them to draw moderates of any demographic to them including that one.

This one must be really great, as I have had to explain it several times. , etc, etc, etc It's in the OP. I am interested in views on the effect of having an independent run, or even the threat of one running. How it might effect the Democrat primary debate, and eventually the 2020 election, and under what circumstances could an independent win.

It was a joke. I will try adding more smileys next time. It was Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Howard Schultz...of course it was...

exactly!

It is. If you can ignore the fact that she was more than responding to his questioning her tax...that is impressive. Thus the . I clearly gave you a non example...again, unless you consider her one of your leaders.

From the link: “Why don’t people ever tell billionaires who want to run for President that they need to ‘work their way up’ or that ‘maybe they should start with city council first’?” The other was Michael Moore insisting Cortez was in fact the leader of the Democrats...thus the , but if you consider her a Democratic leader fill your boots....but at least recognize that she was doing more than simply responding.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-howard-schultz-billionaires_us_5c51fc3de4b093663f5ac439?ec_carp=8112795507701579263 Support link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/02/michael_moore_alexandria_ocasio-cortez_is_leader_of_party_if_youre_moderate_stop_being_moderate.html

One could claim that God created everything we can possibly observe just 5 minutes ago and just as it was at that point in time. How could you possibly prove it's incorrect?