Jon Huntsman as mentioned before. Bloomberg would be a complete joke. No conservative would come close to voting for him on his gun grabs alone.
Compromise Candidate for President
- Thread starter hawkboy76
- Start date
The so called Clinton economy was anything but crap, it was for many, many people though the best they will ever experience. BUT...IMO, it really isn't accurate to give all of the credit Clinton, although he certainly deserves some of it. In particular, remember that Clinton agreed with Repubbers to address welfare reform...something that I doubt a D could line up with nowadays.
Remember that this was during the peak of the computer/technology boom and there was a great deal of "false" economic, or at least temporary, boom related to the many activities that went on in preparation for Y2K...two pretty big things that no politician in any party really can lay legitimate claim to. AND...the House Rep's would take some credit for the "Contract with America" and regaining House control for the first time in years, etc.
If you don't think cons like Bloomberg, we already know they don't like huntsman and Huntsman could never fund a campaign. I think what you are pointing out is that people don't really want a compromise candidate. But they are likely to get one in Clinton all the same.
Bloomberg is what everybody hates about the other guy, left and right. Sanders would be a better example of a compromise.
How is Clinton a compromise candidate? Cons absolutely hate her. Even most moderates find her to be incredibly dishonest. I'm not sure why libs back her as she has no core convictions at all. I wouldn't trust her for a minute as president.
I don't follow this logic at all. Sanders isn't even a compromise between the left and the middle. What conservative view can you point to with Sanders? Bloomberg ticks off every fiscal conservative box and splits the social issues. If that's not good enough for conservatives, than there is no chance of any compromise.
Now I think that what Americans really want. I don't think Americans actually desire a middle ground compromise, they just like to say they do so they can feel better about being reasonable. Note that Clinton is actually a compromise candidate, which is part of the reason enthusiasm for her is so weak. She is just the opposite of Bloomburg in that she gives the libs most every social issue while splitting the fiscal and foreign policy issues.
Honesty isn't a function of being a compromise. In fact compromise is part of the reason she is a viewed as dishonest. She will give you the cons the George Bush foreign, tax and trade policy while she gives the libs the social issues. She will triangulate the life out of the real liberal causes like labor and the environment while she tosses them a bone and names a new Aircraft carrier after some lesbian Admiral. Clinton will be so eager to cement her name in the history books she is all but certain to give the nation either another war or offer to gut the entitlement programs. It's only the R inability to compromise that will save us. Hold firm cons, don't give a single inch. I'm counting on you.
A compromise candidate has to be one that could potentially be palatable to the left and the right. Clinton will never be palatable to the right, therefore she's not an option.
I disagree with your definition. You are describing sentiment, emotion and likeability. A compromise candidate is someone who will deliver middle ground policy positions in my view. Oprah might fit your definition, Clinton and Bloomberg fit mine.
Frankly I'm not sure you could ever find anyone who fits your definition. The moment Oprah became vocal about abortion or guns she would stop being a compromise candidate, no matter her position. Can you think of anyone who fits your definition? I think it may be a fantasy.
Sentiment, emotion, and likeability are also aspects of leadership, and important ones at that. Trust is also important and with the Clintons, there is none. Hillary will say and do whatever she needs to in order to be elected and will govern the country with this same mindset.
There may be no candidate that fits my idea of consensus, but i think Huntsman and Bayh are good possibilities. Their policy views are probably not all that different from Hillary, but they both don't carry the baggage that makes her unpalatable to the right.
But they would the moment they became a possibility. Governing the country with the the mindset that you will do whatever it takes to govern the country may not be so bad. It's what will force her to negotiate just like it did Bill. The Right hated Bill too until the moment he wasn't in office when they promptly thought he was great. Hillary will be the same, this is the Clinton's third term.
My compromise candidate would just be someone that 1/2 of Congress won't work to undermine. I don't see it and the American people should be ashamed for putting ourselves in that situation
Why does America need a compromise candidate? If Trump runs against Billary, then it is a liberal against a liberal.
Despite how wrong you are once again, what you say in that last clause makes it sound like fundamentally that's a problem.
Why are you so focused on the trivial? Of all of his positions, soda size is the only think anyone can criticize? This is why we get bad candidates. Try a little perspective.
I voted for him in 1980.
In retrospect, I probably should have voted for Carter, but Anderson was a good guy and more right on the issues (at least to my younger self).
Not that my vote would have changed anything.
Not my choice, but an OK choice. I recall him as being a libertarian-leaner with a strong-enough pragmatic streak to get things done.
Certainly better than the entire GOP field.
I wish that weren't true. There are a couple of GOP candidates who could have chosen to be sensible and/or honest on important issues rather than spouting the wingnut-tuned talking points. Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, Christie, maybe even Trump.
But they did not choose to be reasonable, honest candidates. So screw them.
Is Johnson even running? Where does he stand on current issues of importance?
SOB, I'm gonna crop this . . . and then . . . I'll be back in 5.
It's time America, let's get this family in the White House.
