US election - who would YOU vote for?

[Amy SF]

Do you think Hillary is electable? I don't see any of the candidates from either party as very electable, tbh. I predict a close race with a crappy president.

I'm not as pessimistic as you are, apparently.

 

[Mischief]

I like Bernie's over all ideas better but I worry about how he would fair with moderate swing voters.

This is me also.

I also don't think Bernie could get his ideas implemented; after all, the POTUS doesn't rule by fiat.

 

[Capstan]

This is me also.

I also don't think Bernie could get his ideas implemented; after all, the POTUS doesn't rule by fiat.

Sanders' ideas are the right ideas, if, for no other reason, they're the same ideas a majority of the people want. Bernie admits he can't produce change overnight, but we have to start moving in the right direction. He calls his campaign a "revolution," but it's really more of a return to where we were, say, 60-years ago. He also needs a Congress he can work with. This same election, there are 34 Senatorial seats (out of 100) up for grabs, and 435 Representational seats. There's nothing in the rule book that says Congress has to be controlled by Republicans. This IS doable, but not if people are unwilling to demand what they want. I'd rather vote for good ideas, than succumb to the political shell-game of, "the lesser of two evils-" or whatever- which is born primarily out of fear mongering. This is the idea that's been lost, that the American people can get what they need through the ballot box. The system can be un-rigged, but it requires a mandate from the people to get it.

It should also be noted that Sen. Sanders has one of the best records of any Congressman or Senator of getting his legislation passed. He has enormous experience (over 30-years) of doing it.

 

[Spang]

Voting for Bernie Sanders won't be enough. We'll need to vote out all of the regressive members of Congress as well. It wouldn't hurt to do the same at the state and local level, too.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I'm British, I live in Chile, so definately no vote, but certainly an interest as a citizen of the world. I mean the world could have been a very different place if a few more voters in Florida had voted for Gore, the world could have become more environmental, and the situation in the middle east and many other things might have worked out differently. It was really a moment in world history.

I've watched a couple of the Republican debates. While they mainly seem focused on jobs and the economy, and secondly making America strong in foreign affairs, there is strong thread of intolerance and stupidity running through it all. Carson and Trump stood out as particularly poor choices. Jeb Bush seems better than some I think, perhaps a relatively more moderate and sensible Republican. Anyway, it looks like he's not going to win.

I'd almost always prefer a Democrat over a Republican, but electing Hilary Clinton is choosing to elect a liar to the highest office in the land. I visited the US shortly after the snipers in Yugoslavia story and most people didn't care or hadn't even heard of it when it was raised. In the UK, that alone might have been bad enough to cause a candidate to pull out of a presidential race. Now, it's forgotten about.

Sanders. Well, on the one hand some good social and environmental policies and thoughts and a more just person and policies, on the other hand: too old, two terms makes him in his 80s and still President having to travel round the world and look Presidential and stand up to Putin, the Chinese etc. Not sure. And you would need to chose the VP carefully. Also, I agree with raising the minimum wage but not by as much as he says. Just not practical for US today. And not sure about this vast public spending either. And not sure, he really represents the whole of the US either, he is way to the left of the average US person.

Still, I voted for Sanders but it's the best of a bad lot, the worst selection of candidates I've ever seen. It makes you realise how good Obama has been after all.

Not surprised that you veggie lot are left leaning, but curious that it's SO one sided. I would have thought some Republicans could be veggie and vegans. Not a single Republican vote.

Interesting to see that the forum appears to be fairly even split between US and none US.

Shame about the low sample size, though.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

There may be an argument however that it's better for Clinton to win the democratic nomination (as is likely) as a relatively more moderate, centrist candidate that would likely defeat Trump, or arguably any Republic candidate. Whereas Sanders' policy would risk leaving the middle ground open and giving a Republican an opportunity.

Trump vs Sanders would be really quite interesting and polarizing.

 

[Wolfie]

Gary Johnson.

 

[Second Summer]

There may be an argument however that it's better for Clinton to win the democratic nomination (as is likely) as a relatively more moderate, centrist candidate that would likely defeat Trump, or arguably any Republic candidate. Whereas Sanders' policy would risk leaving the middle ground open and giving a Republican an opportunity.

Who amongst the Republicans have appeal to the middle ground, though? It would have to be Bush, but like you said, he's unlikely to win the nomination at this point.

Trump vs Sanders would be really quite interesting and polarizing.

Yes ... Whereas Trump vs Clinton would likely get really ugly as Trump apparently has a big problem with women, and also, the Republicans in general have a big problem with Clinton. They also have a lot of material, real and perceived, that they will use against her.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I'm not saying any Republican will appeal particularly to the middle ground because they are all seem way to the right (at least to me, with my European standards, European right wing = US centrist). However, if you have got Sanders as your candidate, you are running very far to the left, so neither candidate would do well in the middle ground. The argument is that the Republicans are so far off to the nutty right these days that you just put up a centrist Democrat and you win a majority. Left wingers and socialist leaning types would hopefully vote for you anyway. I mean, if you are a Sanders loving socialist then probably any republican candidate seems awful, so you would arguably vote for Clinton even if you don't rate her or her policies.

 

[Capstan]

Here's a graph that shows the positions of some of the candidates on the "political compass." Sanders is easily the most centrally located. Given the extreme positions of the Republicans, it might be easy to perceive Sanders as being at the opposite side of the spectrum, but that would be a misconstruction. He's actually very close to center, and positioned to appeal to the broadest spectrum of the voters.

No doubt, Clinton and the Republicans will jump on that word, "socialism," and try to use it as a coffin-nail for Sanders. But socialism is just a balance for capitalism, which is economically to the right, and brings it back closer to the middle. It should be remembered that our interstate highway system, built in the 1950s, under Eisenhower's Republican administration, was a socialist program, and not at all an extreme thing to do.

 

[Second Summer]

Gary Johnson.

Oh, you mean to say there are more than two candidates in the general election?! You certainly wouldn't have picked that idea up from the mainstream media. Unless it's another billionaire like a that Bloomberg fella.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Not sure what your source is for that graph, or exactly what subjective assessments they have made, but the place that they have put the centre line suggests that either a) the centre is based on the opinions of the author, who must be more left wing that right or b) the centre is based on global rather than US positions.

The US centre has to be more to the right, I think. Nearer Clinton.

Everything about Sanders is left. Cares about environment, small guy rather than big business, big public spending, higher minimum wage. He even admitted himself he is a socialist.

I see Ben Carson's not on the chart. Perhaps someone tried to put him on but the chart didn't go far enough to the right.

A bit confused by all the Republicans being said to be authoritarian. I would have thought their defence of gun rights, individual freedoms and need for small government would be more libertarian that anything.

If you look at the odds (based on people betting on the result) Sanders only has something like a 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 chance of winning the democratic nomination, with 1 in 12 or 1 in 13 to be President. He's a long shot. Clinton is the favourite. Clinton's odds are rated at 50/50, i.e. the same as everyone else put together, Democrat or Republic. That also makes the Democrats favourites to win. Trump is 1st Republican favourite, then Rubio, but that is still pretty open. I don't know why but the media doesn't publish these statistics much.

 

[Capstan]

Not sure what your source is....

I can only assume you're referring to the graph I posted? Here's a link to their website-

The Political Compass

Their research has been conducted since 2001, and is based on global politics from the beginning of the 20th-century. For example, both Hitler and Stalin rated very high on the Authoritarian scale, with Hitler at the very top, and Stalin just barely under him, but while Hitler was half-way toward the right, Stalin was extremely left. There are actually two center lines to the graph. The horizontal line represents economic philosophy, with capitalism to the right, and socialism toward the left. These are often misunderstood words. Many believe that Hitler espoused socialism, when he was actually a rather hard-core capitalist.

For the record, in the 2008 election, both Obama and Biden were the two candidates closest to the center of the graph.

 

[Wolfie]

Oh, you mean to say there are more than two candidates in the general election?! You certainly wouldn't have picked that idea up from the mainstream media. Unless it's another billionaire like a that Bloomberg fella.

One day the media will realize more than 2 parties exist. Not going to hold my breath waiting for it though!

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Thanks Capstan, I will look at the website later on.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I did the test on that site, it says I am -2.63 (left) and -3.13 (libertarian). However in the UK as well as the US it has all the parties bunched up on the right hand side with even labour and liberal democrats well to the right. It has me well to the left of labour. And yet I would not vote for labour because I consider them too far to the left for me.

There may be some confusion here with them perhaps considering libertarian/authoritarian some things I would consider left/right however it seems to be that where they put the centre line is not representative of the world today. It might just be the idealist preference of the author of the site and perhaps even implies some underlying bias.

 

[Spang]

I've taken that survey several times over the years. My most recent results:

Spoiler

 

[Amy SF]

Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -9.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36

 

[Capstan]

I did the test on that site, it says I am -2.63 (left) and -3.13 (libertarian). However in the UK as well as the US it has all the parties bunched up on the right hand side with even labour and liberal democrats well to the right. It has me well to the left of labour. And yet I would not vote for labour because I consider them too far to the left for me.

There may be some confusion here with them perhaps considering libertarian/authoritarian some things I would consider left/right however it seems to be that where they put the centre line is not representative of the world today. It might just be the idealist preference of the author of the site and perhaps even implies some underlying bias.

If they were to weight the chart, as you suggest, wouldn't that place your own score considerably farther left, and toward libertarian- perhaps even off the scale? I'm just wondering if you consider your views to be extreme, or unworthy of consideration?

 

[Jamie in Chile]

One day the media will realize more than 2 parties exist. Not going to hold my breath waiting for it though!