danivon wrote:Interesting set of questions, but on a particular issue, the moderates will tend to be those that view the two 'definitive' positions as too extreme, and who want compromise. Or who aren't particularly bothered either way because they think the issue less important than others. So a moderate in one area may be a committed extremist in another.
That would be the third option I posited. That's a losing strategy. That's how they got Romney, and while it's likely, it will fail...again. The reason it will fail is because it's based on an old and out-dated political spectrum. The Republican is more of a collection of factions. Those factions are breaking up from the clean spectrum they used to be. That's why you're seeing finger pointing everywhere.
While I though Gary would be more of a spoiler, it's actually good he can't be labeled as such. They can't blame him like the Dems were able to blame Nader in 2000. Because of that, they have to figure out why they lost--without a spoiler. At the same time, the LP garnered more votes than ever, after losing ground in 2008. That should say something.
danivon wrote:However, even in a multi-line political theory system, I think you'd likely find the 'moderates' somewhere in the middle of the datapoints. Extra dimensions don't really change where moderates are going to be in relation to the parties in a 2-party system: either where they overlap, or in the gaps between them, or on the facing wings of the parties.
Again, this is old ineffective theory. The reason I mentioned the specific issues I did is because they drive a hard wedge through many of the factions. You can't place them in datapoints. Moreover, there is going to be a bitter fight because of what I mentioned above.
danivon wrote:I think in the last election, the kind of voters who represented moderates were like our residents Ray Jay and Purple. They've voted for both main parties in the past (I believe), and they are between the two on most issues (and beyond either of them on few if any).
Right, and they were probably the most ardent of the pro-Romney, which is exactly the group that is shrinking in size the most.
Let's use Redscape Republicans as an example. Rand Paul's tightening of foreign aid and intervention makes people like Purple (band name, anyone?) run, because the Israel hawks won't stand for it. But the Paleocons and Libertarians run if we continue it.
Moving toward the civil Libertarians makes social conservatives run. But more of the same will produce more of the same.
danivon wrote:I think in the US at the moment, the moderates that the Republicans could have easily won with were those who were tending towards the fiscally conservative, but were turned off by the social conservatism of the Republicans.
Like Gary Johnson?
They would also have needed someone who could take-away from the Democrats a bit more. Yes, moderating your position has been the method, but that's not how Obama won. Moreover, 4 of the last 5 incumbent presidents won re-election. A challenger needs to represent marked change to beat an incumbent these days--even in a recession.
danivon wrote:After all, pro-Republicans here were saying that Obama was toast because of the economy and the deficit. In many ways, the general political trend is to punish the incumbent when times are tough. So it should not have been hard to pick up on public concern about the state of the nation financially and economically.
What trend are you talking about? Danivon, you can't compare mid-term congressional elections to
presidential ones. There's a big difference there. I think you lack that understanding because you don't have presidential elections, and your PM is more like our speaker of the house. The real trend is that incumbents win. Period. In fact, the only time an incumbent didn't win since 1984, was Bush Sr. And we all know why that election was different.
danivon wrote:While not all would have listened, there would have been many 'moderates' who would readily agree that the stimulus had not appeared to be working, the unemployment rate was too high, that the deficit and debt levels should have been lower than they are etc etc. They wouldn't need to have signed up to minarchism, just to be persuaded that a less 'liberal' approach was a better offer.
There has to be a good reason as to why that change is necessary. We're a forgiving country. We don't even let our sports teams fail! Many of the economic problems started in the Bush administration, and the Bush administration couldn't have been cannibalized just yet. So winning on the economy meant that the Republicans would have needed to "change" themselves, as well as represent meaningful change. Many Obama supporters still believe, if only by a thread. But as a nation, incumbents generally win--especially lately.
07 Nov 2012, 10:25 am 
I just raised some important questions. 
