Good article from Politco on how far left the Dems have moved
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
I know you'll disagree, but the Dems have moved further left than the Republicans have moved to the right. Hillary has moved way left and she is being contested by two that are even further left, including an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders.. And the Dems are clamoring for another socialist, Elizabeth Warren, to enter the race. Bush was a big government Republican. Billy could not get nominated by the Dems today.
Both parties are moving to the edges. I believe last year was the first year that all of the GOP representatives were graded more conservative than all of the Dems, (or vice versa on party affiliation and liberal). We aren't seeing the parties change, but we are seeing a move away from even slightly moderate candidates with party endorsements. Both sides are guilty. Cantor - hardly a liberal - lost his nomination over a comment about immigration. Lieberman lost his party's nomination before his last run for Senate (won it as an independent). Now something like 43% of Americans identify themselves as independents. The parties don't seem to care though - they still have their monopoly. Now they have a stranglehold on the process and fewer moderate voices to argue with over the platform.
Look at the Republican field.
Huckabee is socially conservative but a big government Republican
Bush is fiscally conservative but wants open immigration including illegals
Santorum is socially conservative but an economic populist
Paul is fiscally conservative but socially pretty liberal and anti interventionist
Cruz is very conservative
Walker is very conservative
Carson is very conservative
Fiorina is very conservative
Trump is a populist and fiscal conservative
Perry is fiscally and socially conservative but more like Bush on immigration
Rubio is socially and fiscally conservative but has shown openness to comprehensive immigration
That is much more diverse than the Dem field. Every Republican candidate since Reagan has been the establishment choice. Bush the elder, Dole, Bush the younger, McCain and Romney. This year might be the first since Reagan where a non establishment choice might be the nominee (true conservative across the board). I don't think Billy could be the nominee of the Dem party today. Obama has succeeded in moving the party very far to the left, imo.
I think Perry is right of Bush on immigration - but that's from memory. I think Paul is a little more establishment than his father, but he has libertarian roots. I have to admit, that's appealing to me. Graham just entered the race as well. He doesn't stand a chance, but I like a lot of what he said. I differ from his point of view on how we should address the ME to some degree, but otherwise I was hanging with him. I also respect his bluntness - and all of those things are why he'll never get the nomination.
I think Bill Clinton could win a dem nomination if he ran as a write-in right now. And Clinton of 1992 wasn't really a centrist. He became pragmatic and worked across the aisle to try to accomplish some things as president. He's labeled as centrist now, but that was simply him working with hand he was dealt. Like him or not, the guy is a pure politician. If you google "sell ice to an eskimo", you'll find a picture of him in a parka.
Clinton is one of the best pure politicians we have had. I think he genuinely likes people and he loves politics. I think Clinton's strength is Obama's weakness. Clinton could empathisize. I don't think that Obama can. Clinton loved the give and take of politics and he loved the details. I don't think Obama does. Both are smart, but Clinton was a much, much more effective executive.
I agree whole heartedly. I would say that Clinton wanted to work toward a solution, Obama wants to convince you to use his solution.
