No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
Didn't Obama seek to roll taxes back to those levels and make capital gains taxed the same as earned income (even before adding the ACA tax to cap gains)? Or was it just Clinton-era levels?
RE: They're pretty angry, they just don't have the audience...
they're confined to college campuses and advocacy groups and while every now and again an idea will sneak out of there and gain traction they're not on major news channels (save occasionally as a real-life strawman on FNC) or otherwise addressing large audiences.
This strikes me as right. There are elements out there, like superhardcore greenies and children away from home for the first time. They have literally no pull within the party. The closest you have in the national power structure is probably the Congressional Black Caucus, which is a just feckless group.
The voices opposed to compromise on the right are a lot more powerful. The far right group in Congress is probably 3-4 times the size of the far left contingent. No compromise groups like Grover Norquist's outfit have no analog on the left in terms of influence.
in 2010 and 2014. The Republican Party was moribund before The Tea Party. Eight years of the Bush Administration and an economic catastrophe in its final act did that. The problem is they're intrinsically limited. They're not capable of winning a presidential election because they're at best a plurality of midterm voters. It's the trick of harnessing their energy without being beholden to them. The Democrats did that well with the anti-Bush venom from 2005 or so on, when the time came to get serious in 2008 they were and the bulk of the Left followed suit.
we're in right now. "Operationally" the far right, is just as small-voiced as the far left. People like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson - they're irrelevant and unelectable, but they are getting a lot of press right now.
Just like when you have a republican incumbent the extreme liberals like Kucinich crawl out of the woodwork but even Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren fit squarely int he "far left" camp.
and mainstream media certainly helps purvey an agenda (admit it or not, though if you don't admit it you'd be lying).
If you look at the make-up of society and how views have been
progressing, it becomes rather apparent why there is much more of a fringe right than a fringe left.
You can also look at how each party organizes the voting for the candidate, and how the candidates have to pander to each group. Much more difficult for the R's than for the D's to ignore the side-circus.
Beyond that, while perhaps a good thing in the long-term, the Tea Party and its pretty widespread appeal (without much of a central tenet anymore, which is why it's base is so large) has been a knife to the side of the R's...
No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
Bernie Sanders is a nobody -- he has no organization and no backing. He's polling 10% in the same way that Donald Duck would poll 10% as the anti-Hilary vote.
Bernie Sanders had to say until he was the only candidate against Hilary. I'm a democrat living in Dem mecca NYC. Not one person has said anything to me about Bernie 2016.
I think Bernie Sanders gets as much pub as an "alternate" because,
quite literally, you don't have the clown car approach to nominations with the Democrats (in terms of quantity; nothing about quality).
He's really the only viable outsider, at this moment, against Hilary, which is probably why he is considered "part and parcel" of the mainstream Dem candidate grouping.
originally, limited political clout, and has become an network that can have a quite sizable impact on the primaries and the general election.
For the most part, the smaller, fringe left groups, rarely have much in common with each other, making it much harder to coalesce into a group that can change the power dynamics of the party.
Bernie Sanders is a nobody -- he has no organization and no backing. He's polling 10% in the same way that Donald Duck would poll 10% as the anti-Hilary vote.
And he is not a Democrat.
He's getting anywhere from 24 to 36% in New Hampshire (and I know that's next door for him) depending on what poll you look at. I'm old enough to remember Gene McCarthy so I won't totally rule out the long shot.
you'd have seen something done about the big banks. Goldman wouldnt by over $200 now (how am I still fucking down money on GS?). BAC and C wouldnt have recovered like they did, and Jaimie Dimon would have had to resign after bitching about all the regulators while his bank was going thru scandal after scandal.
Or there would be real reductions in carbon emissions; e.g. gas would be as expensive as it is in Europe. Or we would be unwinding free trade agreements that might be better for consumers, but are decidedly worse for some union jobs.
This shit isnt even being DISCUSSED. Because there is no effective hard left.
claim the Democratic party isn't influenced by the far left.
President Obama and Hilary Clinton both qualify as far left.
Someone like Howard Dean, if he didn't meltdown on the campaign trail, would have been a better example of a moderate democrat. Joe Lieberman if he didn't struggle to find an identity was a far more moderate democrat (even a conservative democrat).
And Dean very possibly could have been one of the most unifying presidents ever.
His combination of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might have been enough to cross the aisle.
So if you believe this graphic, it also proves the Republican party isn't beholden to the far right. Unless you believe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are going win the primary.
Pretty sure the republican candidate is going to be selected from Marco Rubio to the left.
There's a difference between policy positions in a primary
It's been noted, for several years, that the Republican primary breeds much more ideological candidates, because of a sizable, and relatively powerful, fringe group. The same is not true of the D's for the primary. Which has been the point of many here, and influences the general voting public's perception of the candidate during the regular year.
is Hillary is 64% to the farthest left a person could probably be, and the likely Republican candidate is at most 67% to the farthest right a person could be.
in a year when there is a Democrat incumbent there are more extreme right wing candidates should surprise no one.
and to my early point I'd venture when Obama was elected that primary probably had its share of left wing extremists.
The point is that the set-up to elect a candidate is different, leading to different relative positions. In general, many have found that R candidates are more "far right" than D candidates are "far left".
This reverses for a general election, of course, because no far right candidate would vote for a D, and vice versa, so you need to capture the moderates.
But, beyond that, being "beholden" to a fringe does not mean that they must vote for the beliefs of the fringe, but must work with those who are (or who are part of the fringe political process). In recent years, this has been the Tea Party, where many more moderate R's have been cannibalized by much more extreme candidates.
In essence, it changes the political calculus if more of your "allies" are further to one side.
So if you believe this graphic, it also proves the Republican party isn't beholden to the far right. Unless you believe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are going win the primary.
Pretty sure the republican candidate is going to be selected from Marco Rubio to the left.
Yeah, I dont believe the graphic just because someone posted on this thread. It's some new model from a group at Stanford. But if you go by it, you have Perry, Pency, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, and Paul outside the mainstream of the party -- that's at least half the GOP's serious candidates. But I dont really care about what is the mainstream within the party. That's the whole debate.
The GOP has gotten a lot more conservative and the Democrats have not followed suit in their extremism -- Dems have gotten a bit more liberal, which if I had to guess is largely attributable to conversion of a lot of southern dem seats into GOP seats. Poole (UGa) and Rosenthal (NYU) have been tracking this for decades, and found that the GOP is the most conservative it has been in a decade:
Now scoring this stuff is it's own debate, but the linked NPR piece identifies Poole as political scientists' go-to expert on this grading. Link - ( New Window )
How is Hilary far left? Other than being left of you?
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
It'll be neck-and-neck between the Dem and REP nominees. No one is going to have any sort of money/influence peddling advantage/disadvantage. They're politicians; they're always on special at the counter.
RE: And, for scaling, 4-6.5 is rougly considered to be
look up Hillary at on the issues.org it is a truly non-partisan site.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
look up Hillary at on the issues.org it is a truly non-partisan site.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
look up Hillary at on the issues.org it is a truly non-partisan site.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
You can look at whatever site you want.
Actions matter.
Like I opined. A looong way to go.
this site chronicles her actions. Not sure what actions you're talking about. Voting? Speaking? Being at a rally? what better or different actions are there that tell you how a candidate feels about an issue other than their words and voting records (when they have served in public office like Hillary).
Agree there's a long way to go, and I'm only using Hillary as an example since she's the frontrunner. it's really irrelevant, replace Hillary with [INSERT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE HERE] and the point remains.
Saying everything I believe in as a moderate republican except some 360 on views as the campaign season has started. She moved a little left just as the republicans have tilted to the right.
Saying everything I believe in as a moderate republican except some 360 on views as the campaign season has started. She moved a little left just as the republicans have tilted to the right.
Seems like politics as usual.
I'll go with that site. Proves my point.
Run to get the nomination then go center.
What is a moderate republican? I'd shed the party label. That's what I do. and then find the candidate most closely aligned to your beliefs.
more and more republicans find themselves to be more socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. That's not Hillary if that's what you mean by moderate Republican.
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Quote:
No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
Didn't Obama seek to roll taxes back to those levels and make capital gains taxed the same as earned income (even before adding the ACA tax to cap gains)? Or was it just Clinton-era levels?
This strikes me as right. There are elements out there, like superhardcore greenies and children away from home for the first time. They have literally no pull within the party. The closest you have in the national power structure is probably the Congressional Black Caucus, which is a just feckless group.
The voices opposed to compromise on the right are a lot more powerful. The far right group in Congress is probably 3-4 times the size of the far left contingent. No compromise groups like Grover Norquist's outfit have no analog on the left in terms of influence.
Just like when you have a republican incumbent the extreme liberals like Kucinich crawl out of the woodwork but even Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren fit squarely int he "far left" camp.
and mainstream media certainly helps purvey an agenda (admit it or not, though if you don't admit it you'd be lying).
You can also look at how each party organizes the voting for the candidate, and how the candidates have to pander to each group. Much more difficult for the R's than for the D's to ignore the side-circus.
Beyond that, while perhaps a good thing in the long-term, the Tea Party and its pretty widespread appeal (without much of a central tenet anymore, which is why it's base is so large) has been a knife to the side of the R's...
Quote:
No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
Bernie Sanders is a nobody -- he has no organization and no backing. He's polling 10% in the same way that Donald Duck would poll 10% as the anti-Hilary vote.
And he is not a Democrat.
He's really the only viable outsider, at this moment, against Hilary, which is probably why he is considered "part and parcel" of the mainstream Dem candidate grouping.
For the most part, the smaller, fringe left groups, rarely have much in common with each other, making it much harder to coalesce into a group that can change the power dynamics of the party.
Quote:
In comment 12348216 Deej said:
Quote:
Bernie Sanders is a nobody -- he has no organization and no backing. He's polling 10% in the same way that Donald Duck would poll 10% as the anti-Hilary vote.
And he is not a Democrat.
He's getting anywhere from 24 to 36% in New Hampshire (and I know that's next door for him) depending on what poll you look at. I'm old enough to remember Gene McCarthy so I won't totally rule out the long shot.
Or there would be real reductions in carbon emissions; e.g. gas would be as expensive as it is in Europe. Or we would be unwinding free trade agreements that might be better for consumers, but are decidedly worse for some union jobs.
This shit isnt even being DISCUSSED. Because there is no effective hard left.
Nope. You're capable of doing that all by yourself.
President Obama and Hilary Clinton both qualify as far left.
Someone like Howard Dean, if he didn't meltdown on the campaign trail, would have been a better example of a moderate democrat. Joe Lieberman if he didn't struggle to find an identity was a far more moderate democrat (even a conservative democrat).
And Dean very possibly could have been one of the most unifying presidents ever.
His combination of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might have been enough to cross the aisle.
Politics in general. Watch what they do not what they say.
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
I'm irrelevant and I wasn't using myself as a gauge, I'm talking "of center" and relative to her party.
Her voting record doesn't support it, that's all over the place, but her campaign so far has been far left.
Quote:
How is Hilary far left? Other than being left of you?
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
Ridiculous inane comment. Name one republican candidate that Hillary is close to as conservative as?
Anything outside that and you start approaching the fringes, though they aren't really defined until you hit about 8 on the scale.
So if you believe this graphic, it also proves the Republican party isn't beholden to the far right. Unless you believe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are going win the primary.
Pretty sure the republican candidate is going to be selected from Marco Rubio to the left.
It's been noted, for several years, that the Republican primary breeds much more ideological candidates, because of a sizable, and relatively powerful, fringe group. The same is not true of the D's for the primary. Which has been the point of many here, and influences the general voting public's perception of the candidate during the regular year.
And "far" is defined by statistics...
in a year when there is a Democrat incumbent there are more extreme right wing candidates should surprise no one.
and to my early point I'd venture when Obama was elected that primary probably had its share of left wing extremists.
in either case this is a silly point to debate.
This reverses for a general election, of course, because no far right candidate would vote for a D, and vice versa, so you need to capture the moderates.
But, beyond that, being "beholden" to a fringe does not mean that they must vote for the beliefs of the fringe, but must work with those who are (or who are part of the fringe political process). In recent years, this has been the Tea Party, where many more moderate R's have been cannibalized by much more extreme candidates.
In essence, it changes the political calculus if more of your "allies" are further to one side.
So if you believe this graphic, it also proves the Republican party isn't beholden to the far right. Unless you believe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are going win the primary.
Pretty sure the republican candidate is going to be selected from Marco Rubio to the left.
Yeah, I dont believe the graphic just because someone posted on this thread. It's some new model from a group at Stanford. But if you go by it, you have Perry, Pency, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, and Paul outside the mainstream of the party -- that's at least half the GOP's serious candidates. But I dont really care about what is the mainstream within the party. That's the whole debate.
The GOP has gotten a lot more conservative and the Democrats have not followed suit in their extremism -- Dems have gotten a bit more liberal, which if I had to guess is largely attributable to conversion of a lot of southern dem seats into GOP seats. Poole (UGa) and Rosenthal (NYU) have been tracking this for decades, and found that the GOP is the most conservative it has been in a decade:
Now scoring this stuff is it's own debate, but the linked NPR piece identifies Poole as political scientists' go-to expert on this grading.
Link - ( New Window )
For instance, this is (partly) the same group who attempted to explain why richer individuals tend to vote R, but why richer cities tend to vote D.
yet people still get their panties stuck in their vaginas because her name was mentioned.
Quote:
How is Hilary far left? Other than being left of you?
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
It'll be neck-and-neck between the Dem and REP nominees. No one is going to have any sort of money/influence peddling advantage/disadvantage. They're politicians; they're always on special at the counter.
Anything outside that and you start approaching the fringes, though they aren't really defined until you hit about 8 on the scale.
How could anyone view Santorum or Jindal as mainstream?
Quote:
In comment 12348297 Deej said:
Quote:
How is Hilary far left? Other than being left of you?
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
Ridiculous inane comment. Name one republican candidate that Hillary is close to as conservative as?
Who is going to be the most paid for in FIRE as her?
Abortion and Gay rights not an issue.
Bush has a better record then her on immigration issues and is married to a Mexican national?
Worst thing for this country is for another Clinton/Bush run.
I'm a moderate republican and really don't see a loss in the coming election.
It's still a year away from who we know the candidates will be.
Name who the left is going to put up beside Clinton?
She is ordained. We need the first women president.
Worked last time around. Except this one has a history.
Looong time to go.
How could anyone view Santorum or Jindal as mainstream? [/quote]
Yet look at all the people less mainstream than these two.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than.
Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
You can look at whatever site you want.
Actions matter.
Like I opined. A looong way to go.
Agree, I didn't say she hasn't but that was my point.
Quote:
look up Hillary at on the issues.org it is a truly non-partisan site.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
You can look at whatever site you want.
Actions matter.
Like I opined. A looong way to go.
this site chronicles her actions. Not sure what actions you're talking about. Voting? Speaking? Being at a rally? what better or different actions are there that tell you how a candidate feels about an issue other than their words and voting records (when they have served in public office like Hillary).
Agree there's a long way to go, and I'm only using Hillary as an example since she's the frontrunner. it's really irrelevant, replace Hillary with [INSERT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE HERE] and the point remains.
Where is the difference?
Saying everything I believe in as a moderate republican except some 360 on views as the campaign season has started. She moved a little left just as the republicans have tilted to the right.
Seems like politics as usual.
I'll go with that site. Proves my point.
Run to get the nomination then go center.
Where is the difference?
Saying everything I believe in as a moderate republican except some 360 on views as the campaign season has started. She moved a little left just as the republicans have tilted to the right.
Seems like politics as usual.
I'll go with that site. Proves my point.
Run to get the nomination then go center.
What is a moderate republican? I'd shed the party label. That's what I do. and then find the candidate most closely aligned to your beliefs.
more and more republicans find themselves to be more socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. That's not Hillary if that's what you mean by moderate Republican.
If not, what do you mean?
Bush II spent like a drunken sailor. Obama is is him x3.
There hasn't been a "fiscal conservative" since Bush I who got nailed because he raised taxes. Remember read my lips?
Your thinking more hard right vs hard left.
It's all relative.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.