Presidential candidate that might get votes from both parties

[fredtoast]

Seems like every Presidential election is decided by the few people in the middle considered independents. About a third of the country is Democrat and about a third is Republican and they always vote for their own candidate. Is there anyone out there who could actually draw votes from both parties?


I might have voted for McCain in 2000 because he had that "maverick" reputation of not always following the party line, but by '08 he was just another party lapdog.

Republican John Kasich seems to be a bit more liberal idea on a few policies (health care, immigration, LGBT rights, guns, free trade agreements) but he is still pretty conservative on many other issue like climate change, abortion, education, foreign policy and defense spending.

Republican Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman had some liberal leanings regarding climate change, health care, same sex marriage, and immigration.

Democrat Gary Locke's fiscal policies when he was Governor of Washington were so conservative that he angered many Democrats with his spending cuts. Don't know a lot about his positions on many other issues, but he has a good "story". His grandparents immigrated to US from Chine. His dad was a WWII vet. He was raised in public housing and did not learn English until he was 5 and started school, but he worked his way into Yale. He was Secretary of Commerce under Obama and later Ambassador to China.

[*bfine32*]

A guy I've very recently turned my attention to is Seth Moulton. Dude graduated from Harvard with a degree in Physics and then joined the Marines. He had 4 tours in Iraq. I heard (nothing confirmed) that he is a thorn in Pelosi's side. So I think he could take some of the Military base from Trump and be just conservative enough to turn off those tired of the extreme Right and Left.

Also, I've said before Rand Paul could give a 3rd party a degree of legitimacy.

[Dill]

(11-07-2018, 07:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Seems like every Presidential election is decided by the few people in the middle considered independents.  About a third of the country is Democrat and about a third is Republican and they always vote for their own candidate.  Is there anyone out there who could actually draw votes from both parties?

I might have voted for McCain in 2000 because he had that "maverick" reputation of not always following the party line, but by '08 he was just another party lapdog.

Republican John Kasich seems to be a bit more liberal idea on a few policies (health care, immigration, LGBT rights, guns, free trade agreements) but he is still pretty conservative on many other issue like climate change, abortion, education, foreign policy and defense spending.

Republican Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman had some liberal leanings regarding climate change, health care, same sex marriage, and immigration.

Democrat Gary Locke's fiscal policies when he was Governor of Washington were so conservative that he angered many Democrats with his spending cuts.  Don't know a lot about his positions on many other issues, but he has a good "story".  His grandparents immigrated to US from Chine.  His dad was a WWII vet.  He was raised in public housing and did not learn English until he was 5 and started school, but he worked his way into Yale.  He was Secretary of Commerce under Obama and later Ambassador to China.

I like Huntsman, but he has no chance of being elected anymore. The party of Trump won't be led by a guy who can speak Chinese, and he is still too conservative to make sufficient inroads into the Democratic vote.

[Au165]

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.....I'm serious.

[*michaelsean*]

Yeah those Dems Fred mentioned sound like a good alternative to going third party. I thought third party would get a nice boost in 2016, but it didn't look much different from any year that I could tell.

[treee]

A candidate that gets votes from both parties:

- Acknowledges we need to reduce spending or increase taxes (or both). We need to get the annual deficit under control.

- Acknowledges that social welfare programs are a net benefit for society.

- Acknowledges that we need to find innovative ways to keep firearms from people who are a public danger (while minimizing any intrusive effects on everyday gun purchasers).

- Recognizes that developed nations badly need immigrants, and therefor increase the in-flow of legal immigration (this could be simultaneous with increasing border security).

- Acknowledges there are situations where abortions are appropriate, and also advocates for more sex education spending as well as contraceptive availability to reduce unplanned pregnancies in the first place.

- Recognizes that a decent number of illegal drugs are not very dangerous, and prohibition does nothing but prop up a secondary market inhabited by criminals.



Those are some moderate positions that I could think of off the top of my head.

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2018, 01:18 PM)treee Wrote: A candidate that gets votes from both parties:

- Acknowledges we need to reduce spending or increase taxes (or both). We need to get the annual deficit under control.

- Acknowledges that social welfare programs are a net benefit for society.

- Acknowledges that we need to find innovative ways to keep firearms from people who are a public danger (while minimizing any intrusive effects on everyday gun purchasers).

- Recognizes that developed nations badly need immigrants, and therefor increase the in-flow of legal immigration (this could be simultaneous with increasing border security).

- Acknowledges there are situations where abortions are appropriate, and also advocates for more sex education spending as well as contraceptive availability to reduce unplanned pregnancies in the first place.

- Recognizes that a decent number of illegal drugs are not very dangerous, and prohibition does nothing but prop up a secondary market inhabited by criminals.



Those are some moderate positions that I could think of off the top of my head.

I would only add infrastructure to that list.

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2018, 10:08 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah those Dems Fred mentioned sound like a good alternative to going third party. I thought third party would get a nice boost in 2016, but it didn't look much different from any year that I could tell.

With first-past-the-post voting and the Electoral College, no third party or independent has a shot at the presidency.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-08-2018, 02:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: With first-past-the-post voting and the Electoral College, no third party or independent has a shot at the presidency.

No but they could get enough votes (or so I hoped) to get a place at the table.  If a libertarian or whatever is up on the stage during debates, it would make a difference.

[Yojimbo]

9% of Democrats voted for Trump. 7% of Republicans voted for Clinton. Independents were split 42 (Clinton) to 48 (Trump).

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

[samhain]

I'd go with literally nobody ever again. There's way too much polarization. It's an us vs them scenario from here on out. The only thing that changes the party in power is the whims of the undecided voters and the up-to-the-moment political climate.

The people who control the money that funds campaigns ads have far less constraints than they used to. Even if candidates were more centrist or appealing to voters from the opposite parties, the PACs will promptly take it upon themselves to smear and destroy them if it protects their interests. They will make a guy like John McCain look like Richard Spencer and a woman like Amy MgGrath look like Susan Sarandon. That's what sticks in people's heads and that's what will control our political landscape until forever.

[bengaloo]

I always wondered if a guy like Gary Johnson could compete if he was allowed to debate the big dogs on prime time. He would draw votes from both sides imo. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal seems to appeal to a lot of people from what I've seen.

[Dill]

(11-08-2018, 04:24 PM)bengaloo Wrote: I always wondered if a guy like Gary Johnson could compete if he was allowed to debate the big dogs on prime time. He would draw votes from both sides imo. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal seems to appeal to a lot of people from what I've seen.

"What is Aleppo?"  That is how he would compete.

[*Nately120*]

(11-08-2018, 03:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No but they could get enough votes (or so I hoped) to get a place at the table.  If a libertarian or whatever is up on the stage during debates, it would make a difference.

The last time a 3rd party candidate was allowed to take part in debates it did make a difference...and that's why it isn't allowed.  

(11-09-2018, 06:47 PM)Dill Wrote: "What is Aleppo?"  That is how he would compete.

Ehh, I'm sure if he got another crack at it he would learn the political tactic of talking around a question and saying nothing of note rather than actually admitting you don't know something. 

[fredtoast]

Bets thing the serious Libertarians could do is start a new party with a new name. Leave all the fringe nutjobs to smoke weed naked in the old party.

[fredtoast]

(11-08-2018, 02:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: With first-past-the-post voting and the Electoral College, no third party or independent has a shot at the presidency.

This.  Doesn't matter if they get 25% in every election they will still end up with ZERO seats.

The way our country is divided right now a third party (or parties) would only have to win a very few seats to have enough power to force some compromises and get the system running again.  But that means they have to win some elections instead of just getting a bunch of votes and finishing 2nd or third.

[bengaloo]

(11-09-2018, 06:47 PM)Dill Wrote: "What is Aleppo?"  That is how he would compete.

LOL, I hear that. He does have some good ideas though, and when he was Gov of NM, he had people from all parties voting for him. I think the Libertarian Party could find someone better than him but like most 3rd parties, they will never raise enough money anyway. I only vote local. Things like citizens united kind of ruins it for me.

[Yojimbo]

Richard Ojeda just threw his hat in the ring. I could see a guy like that attracting the worker vote from both parties and independents, but I doubt he'd get any of the suburban, urban, wealthy elites vote.