Independent run for POTUS 2020

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Which one of these might have the most influence?

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? 

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

. If the Democrats move far enough from the centre.

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. 

[CharonY]

Perhaps from a different perspective, if we use the topics outlined by JC (which, by no means mean that they decisive topics), in many areas public opinion in fact overlap with some of the more progressive opinions within the Democratic party. More in many areas than the stance of moderate Democrats so that it would be very very difficult to find a slot that is well, more moderate but still supported by public opinion.

As already mentioned, the majority favours tax brackets of 70%, with high support by Democreats and Independents (71% and 60%) vs Republicans (still 45%). While many moderate Democrats are a bit mum when it comes to the government involvement in health care, some 60% of the population think that it is the government responsibility to ensure health care coverage. Similarly, many Democrats especially tread carefully around gun rules, yet over 60% would like to see stricter control. Carbon Tax is supported by 53% of all respondents (but with a partisan lean).

In the end it seems that there is little space in what you have characterized as the middle field. Rather, the imaginary successful moderate would in the end need to adopt policies that are more in line with what is considered the more extreme proposals. The background for all this is congress misjudges the positions of their voters by a fair bit. This follows some other reports which indicate that politicians as a whole think that their voter base is more conservative than they really are. I.e. if you take someone that would indeed occupy the middleground between Dems and Reps, you will have someone with less support than someone going for the actual base of each party.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Perhaps from a different perspective, if we use the topics outlined by JC (which, by no means mean that they decisive topics), in many areas public opinion in fact overlap with some of the more progressive opinions within the Democratic party. More in many areas than the stance of moderate Democrats so that it would be very very difficult to find a slot that is well, more moderate but still supported by public opinion.

As already mentioned, the majority favours tax brackets of 70%, with high support by Democreats and Independents (71% and 60%) vs Republicans (still 45%). While many moderate Democrats are a bit mum when it comes to the government involvement in health care, some 60% of the population think that it is the government responsibility to ensure health care coverage. Similarly, many Democrats especially tread carefully around gun rules, yet over 60% would like to see stricter control. Carbon Tax is supported by 53% of all respondents (but with a partisan lean).

In the end it seems that there is little space in what you have characterized as the middle field. Rather, the imaginary successful moderate would in the end need to adopt policies that are more in line with what is considered the more extreme proposals. The background for all this is congress misjudges the positions of their voters by a fair bit. This follows some other reports which indicate that politicians as a whole think that their voter base is more conservative than they really are. I.e. if you take someone that would indeed occupy the middleground between Dems and Reps, you will have someone with less support than someone going for the actual base of each party.

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.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

As already mentioned, the majority favours tax brackets of 70%, with high support by Democreats and Independents (71% and 60%) vs Republicans (still 45%). While many moderate Democrats are a bit mum when it comes to the government involvement in health care, some 60% of the population think that it is the government responsibility to ensure health care coverage. Similarly, many Democrats especially tread carefully around gun rules, yet over 60% would like to see stricter control. Carbon Tax is supported by 53% of all respondents (but with a partisan lean).

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. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 hours ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

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.

 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Theoretically you could lose the election with the vast majority of votes.

It’s not theoretical. It has happened and keeps happening. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s not theoretical. It has happened and keeps happening. 

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

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

come on splinters pick a side.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

come on splinters pick a side.

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

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

I just want to know what you really think...

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I just want to know what you really think...

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

[iNow]

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

Indeed, it is very nonspecific, and if your plan is to nickle and dime people around the margins, then the least you could do is provide a specific number that meets your personal arbitrary thresholds.

In the 2016 presidential election, a total of 136,639,786 votes were cast. Clinton received 65,853,516 while Trump received 62,984,824, a difference of 2,864,974. 

We can tug of war around the meaning of "vast" and the meaning of "majority," but that's more than a 2.1% difference, which is MASSIVE when you're talking about a hundred and thirty-seven MILLION total votes.

Let's be real here, please... It's not like a 2 or 3 people difference. It's a 2 or 3 MILLION people difference. That matters, maybe not to you, but it does to me.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

Is that a question?

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Indeed, it is very nonspecific, and if your plan is to nickle and dime people around the margins, then the least you could do is provide a specific number that meets your personal arbitrary thresholds.

In the 2016 presidential election, a total of 136,639,786 votes were cast. Clinton received 65,853,516 while Trump received 62,984,824, a difference of 2,864,974. 

We can tug of war around the meaning of "vast" and the meaning of "majority," but that's more than a 2.1% difference, which is MASSIVE when you're talking about a hundred and thirty-seven MILLION total votes.

Let's be real here, please... It's not like a 2 or 3 people difference. It's a 2 or 3 MILLION people difference. That matters, maybe not to you, but it does to me.

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.

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

and clearly not what I was referring to.

Which is?

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Don't quote me out of context

I didn’t. Now, help me understand how all of this ties to your topic of an independent successfully running for POTUS in 2020. 

In 2016, the Democrat took 48.2% of the vote, the Republican took 46.1% of the vote, and all the others/independents in total took only 5.7%. 

Given your laser like focus on vastness and majorities, perhaps you can elaborate a bit on why you think there’s a snowballs chance in hell for an independent victory. Help us unsterstand how you manage to frame this as at all viable given that individual independents in 2016 managed only to secure (as their TOTAL vote percentage) less than the margin by which Clinton won (but still lost the office).

Stein and Johnson: 1-3% of the vote. Clinton margin: 2% of the vote. Winner: Trump. J.C.MacSwell: Still wishful thinking and ignoring the facts on the ground by continuing to speak of mythological independents. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

[Ten oz]

@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. 

If it were just one election and each different election swung back and forth you'd have a point. It is every election though. Democrats just won the popular vote for the House by 9.8 million votes. Democrats win the majority of votes time after time after time. Democrats are clearly the party preferred by the majority of voters. 

Despite Democrats being preferred by the Majority of voters and representing more voters even in the Senate where they are the minority you are still questioning whether or not a moderate could win the Democratic nomination. It is odd. What seems logical to me is that the party with the broadest appeal and most diverse base is obviously also the more moderate one. 

In 2018 Democrats won women by a margin of 59-40 (+19), Asians 77-23 (+54), Blacks 90-9 (+81), and Hispanics 69-29 (+40). The only group Republicans won were white men. Republicans didn't win white women. White women were evenly split 49-49. White men voted Republican 60-39 (+21).  Link

Democrats appeal to a much broader group of people than Republican. It is Republicans who need to shift towards the center and broaden their appeal. They are the ones who only appeal to a singular group of people. 

 

 

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Democrats appeal to a much broader group of people than Republican. It is Republicans who need to shift towards the center and broaden their appeal. They are the ones who only appeal to a singular group of people.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression is easier, though. Once that's done, there's no incentive or obligation to make good on promises to the electorate, just the donors.

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Gerrymandering and voter suppression is easier, though. Once that's done, there's no incentive or obligation to make good on promises to the electorate, just the donors.

Right, yet J.C.'s position seems to be that the right Charismatic Centrist can overcome the inequality of the system. It misrepresents the nature of partisanship in the U.S. as being a honest disagreement between equally supported parties. 

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, yet J.C.'s position seems to be that the right Charismatic Centrist can overcome the inequality of the system. It misrepresents the nature of partisanship in the U.S. as being a honest disagreement between equally supported parties. 

Exactly. The playfield isn't level. Using steroids while expecting moderates train at super human levels.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 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. 

If it were just one election and each different election swung back and forth you'd have a point. It is every election though. Democrats just won the popular vote for the House by 9.8 million votes. Democrats win the majority of votes time after time after time. Democrats are clearly the party preferred by the majority of voters. 

Despite Democrats being preferred by the Majority of voters and representing more voters even in the Senate where they are the minority you are still questioning whether or not a moderate could win the Democratic nomination. It is odd. What seems logical to me is that the party with the broadest appeal and most diverse base is obviously also the more moderate one. 

In 2018 Democrats won women by a margin of 59-40 (+19), Asians 77-23 (+54), Blacks 90-9 (+81), and Hispanics 69-29 (+40). The only group Republicans won were white men. Republicans didn't win white women. White women were evenly split 49-49. White men voted Republican 60-39 (+21).  Link

Democrats appeal to a much broader group of people than Republican. It is Republicans who need to shift towards the center and broaden their appeal. They are the ones who only appeal to a singular group of people. 

 

 

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.

 

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

 

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.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

leftist overreaching

Once again, you fail to exemplify with your own actions and words the moderation for which you so often and repeatedly in these threads call.

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Once again, you fail to exemplify with your own actions and words the moderation for which you so often and repeatedly in these threads call.

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.

Edited February 9, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[beecee]

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 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 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.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

LOL at nickle and dime. A majority by 2.1% is no where close to the mainstream definition of "vast majority".

46 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do I laugh? 

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

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

There are candidates running. This conversation doesn't need to be about hypothetical or mythical candidates. We could discuss their positions and evaluate whether or not they meet your definition of moderate. I have already asked you directly, and been ignored, if you think any of the current candidates running for the Democratic nomination are moderate. So I will broaden the question for you. Do you think anyone who is even speculated to possibly run in 2020 as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent is a moderate? If so who and if not what specifically about Booker, Harris, and Castro makes them something other than moderate?