Independent run for POTUS 2020

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It was Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Howard Schultz...of course it was...

How was the tone different? Schultz called her tax plan uniformed and un-American. It isn't like Schultz said he politely disagreed and AOC went berserk. His rhetoric attacked both her base of knowledge and patriotism. She responded in kind. 

Anyway, this is your thread do you want pages of nonesense about AOC or is there something substantive you'd like to discuss? 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It was a joke

As we all know, the very best jokes require explaining. 

[Sensei]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I would assume that it included the fact (pointed out above) that a decent bloc of the white vote that Trump got was evangelicals, and they are unlikely to defect for an independent candidate who is not committed to their interests.

Just a side note, people should not vote for candidate who is supporting their personal interests, but who is supporting human-kind interests as a whole. The easiest example is global warming issue. Somebody heavily involved in oil&gas industry by himself/herself or indirectly by e.g. owning large amount of stocks of such companies, naturally wants to sustain it this way, so will vote for candidate who is not accepting global warming, but that is against human-kind interests!

Hilariously, if some candidate would say "I will destroy this world!" nobody would vote for such person, but when they say "I will not close coal mines etc., I will reopen already closed one, make more coal power plants, instead will close all these renewable energy plants", such person would get applause from some group of incompetent people.. while the person said exactly the same thing, just using different words..

Edited February 5, 2019 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

"I will destroy this world!" nobody would vote for such person

Not enough people would vote for that person for them to win but some people would definitely vote for a candidate who promised to burn the whole world down. Provided it was framed in context of anger towards others a lot of people would support it. Some people are in it to see others lose and not to win anything for themselves per se. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

As we all know, the very best jokes require explaining. 

This one must be really great, as I have had to explain it several times.

, etc, etc, etc

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

is there something substantive you'd like to discuss? 

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.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

I don't think it has any effect on the Democratic Primary.

I already broke down which demographic is the only demographic that is likely to vote for a 3rd party candidate. As such I don't believe a 3rd party candidate could win or even come close to. 

How it would impact 2020 is hard to guess with any level of certainty. How we consume information has changed quickly. The way social media analytics, news apps ones phone or laptop, and etc use search history to learn habits and predict preferences has evolved very quickly compared to the the general election cycle. As a result people become locked in their own information loops and don't realize their own habits determine the headlines. There will be millions of people oblivious to Schultz or any other 3rd party candidate. Their devices won't send them news about Schultz based on the calculated level of interest. While others will become hyper aware and get news alerts and updates about Schultz daily. We also saw via the Russian cyber attacks that those  analytics can  be used to micro target specific pockets of people with disinformation. Currently the majority of likely voters have never heard of Schultz per the only polling on the issue I have seen. 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

Just a side note, people should not vote for candidate who is supporting their personal interests, but who is supporting human-kind interests as a whole.  

That's one difference between certain blocks of voters. Some vote their personal interests, others do as you say.  

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

As such I don't believe a 3rd party candidate could win or even come close to. 

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?

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

I already broke down which demographic is the only demographic that is likely to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

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.

[Ten oz]

56 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

I listed the numbers for Nadar and Perot who were the 2 most successful 3rd party candidates in recent generations. 96 & 95 percent of the votes they received were from white voters. Nadar and Perot represent direct sides of the political spectrum. 

Can you provide an example of that trend not holding true?

*Among white votes there are numerous sub groups based on interest. I am not implying the same individuals who voted Perot also voted Nadar.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I listed the numbers for Nadar and Perot who were the 2 most successful 3rd party candidates in recent generations. 96 & 95 percent of the votes they received were from white voters. Nadar and Perot represent direct sides of the political spectrum. 

Can you provide an example of that trend not holding true?

*Among white votes there are numerous sub groups based on interest. I am not implying the same individuals who voted Perot also voted Nadar.

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.

[Ten oz]

41 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

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. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

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.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 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.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Which politicians don't practice identity politics????

My point was with regard to moderate voters, not the politicians themselves.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

it requires more than targeting moderates based on their racial demographics

As best I can tell, nobody here other than you is talking about targeting moderates based on racial demographics.

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My point was with regard to moderate voters, not the politicians themselves.

So, just to confirm... you are unable to provide even a single example, correct?

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

I have not said anything about targeting people based on race. 

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My point was with regard to moderate voters, not the politicians themselves.

Moderates don't hold positions which can be indentified? 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, just to confirm... you are unable to provide even a single example, correct?

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:

 

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I have not said anything about targeting people based on race. 

 

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?

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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:

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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

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)

Edited February 5, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How is that choice more identity politics (as I defined my context) than appeasing identifiable groups?

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. 

Quote

 

updated 10/5/2008 7:36:53 PM ET

Palin defends Obama terrorist comment

The Associated Press

BURLINGAME, Calif. — Sarah Palin defended her claim that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists," saying the Democratic presidential nominee's association with a 1960s radical is an issue that is "fair to talk about."

Link

From Palin's RNC speech Sept 3rd 2008:

"Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it."Link

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

39 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

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.

46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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 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.

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

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. 

Quote

June 14, 2012

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said this week that President Obama never made a sincere effort to reach out to him after the 2008 election. 

McCain was once seen as a potential ally of Obama. But far from becoming a partner - as the left hoped for and the right feared - McCain has turned into one of Obama's thorniest adversaries. 

"Let's get real here," McCain told The Hill. "There was never any outreach from President Obama or anyone in his administration to me." Link

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. 

Quote

My context: Identity politics is about making these divisions for political purposes in a negative way, often pitting one group against another.

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. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

 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.

[iNow]

The bigger idea here, JCM, is that you seem a bit... selective... with your application of the "identity politics" label. It's pervasive and everywhere to be seen in politics, yet you focus it as a criticism pretty squarely on one side of the aisle.

Perhaps it's unintended and not representative of your true motivations, but it comes across to us readers as a bit hypocritical and even as a blatant double standard.

Maybe we can take further discussion of this offline or into another thread, though. This one is about independent candidates running in 2020 and how each of us sees that possibility (if I understood your OP correctly).

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

The bigger idea here, JCM, is that you seem a bit... selective... with your application of the "identity politics" label. It's pervasive and everywhere to be seen in politics, yet you focus it as a criticism pretty squarely on one side of the aisle.

Perhaps it's unintended and not representative of your true motivations, but it comes across to us readers as a bit hypocritical and even as a blatant double standard.

Maybe we can take further discussion of this offline or into another thread, though. This one is about independent candidates running in 2020 and how each of us sees that possibility (if I understood your OP correctly).

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).

 

[Ten oz]

52 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

polarizing rhetoric of identity politics could be a key advantage for a moderate independent candidate.

There isn't a singlular definition for what a moderate candidate is. It is relative.

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

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? 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So I would like to see a more moderate candidate get the Democrat ticket, and a much morestatesmanlike/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).

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? 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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? 

I found this which you might find interesting on where our centre-right stands relative to the Republican and Dems:

Quote

Policy	Republican Party		U.K. Conservatives (Cameron)		Democratic Party (Obama)
Abortion	Oppose		Support, but limit		Support
Death penalty	Support		Oppose		Support
Same-sex marriage	Oppose		Support		Support
Heavy cuts to government	Support		Support		Oppose
National healthcare policy	Oppose		Support		Support
Renewable energy	Oppose		Support		Support
Carbon tax	Oppose		Support		Support
Stricter border security	Support		Support		Not a priority

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-conservative-would-uk-conservatives-be-us/312573/