Edouard

Oops I misclicked, I vote Hestia (change 😛 )

I totally understand your point but what catholic social teaching in my opinion is for example contrary to the platform on immigration : Immigration/Borderwalls/Deportations: Put forward immigration reform under the condition that the illegal aliens bad higher taxes for as many years as they were hear illegally and that they learn basic English and American civics/history. Alter conditions if the alien is willing to serve in the military. Build a border wall. At least if I follow what the Pope says : https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-francis-europe-migrants-1.6975595 Not that I personnaly disagree with your position, but it is not the position of the papacy. This : Anti-racism/racism: Evil exists in every man, and racism is evil. That being said, America is not inherently racist, but there are ways to clear up this misconception: rebuild our education system (charter schools, higher wages for teachers, home school), expand the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to combat poverty in our cities and Appalachia, fund our police and equip them with cameras for accountability. The status of Confederate statues should be decided by a local vote, not by mob rule. Is indeed what can be considered as compassionate conservatism. But this : Reduce interest rates on student loans and end government subsidies on student loans and universities. Is in my opinion of course not more moderate than what Donald Trump proposed in 2016 for example. For increasing the minimum wage it is but it should be said at which dollar/hour. Overall my opinion is that the platform at large is closer to traditionnal conservatives (historically of course) than George W. Bush. It is true that George W. Bush opposed same sex marriage in the 2000s, but he moved since on what I call the "Romney" position. When he endorsed civil unions in 2004 he actually were in the minority of his party and seeking to talk to what was at the time a greater majority of americans. He had put democrats in trouble at the time because they were also in favor of civil unions but not marriage at the time. The evolution of compassionate conservatism of Bush junior is very clear here : https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-w-bush-reportedly-offered-to-officiate-same-sex-wedding/ On the case of family and totally separated from our discussion (which is different) I would argue that the goal of liberal conservatives has been to set traditionnal family values in homosexual couples, and in several ways they have got results.

Yes compassionate conservative is either being somewhat left-wing on society or the economy or moderate on any of the two and seeking a greater majority, that's traditionnal conservatism here.

I absolutely agree with your presentation of my platform and the ones of those I also read or personnaly know. I could add in detail that my platform is obviously societally liberal but also mainstream democrat to liberal on Education and healthcare but obviously very centrist to center-right on budget/security/immigration so it can still fit in your résumé.

I would like that you show the graph of where people are with their platform maybe on the scale of the game from left to right, you know with the cursor as it is made in Infinity game for the overall position of course. Also for home state you can put my char in New Hampshire or New York.

I didn't believe I would have to mention a third potential surprise candidate for 2027 but here it is, for the coalition of the center to complete after mentionning one potential for the left and one potential for the right. It's the current minister of french education, Gabriel Attal. He comes from the Socialist party, but he served 5 years as spokesperson of the french government and in the budget, offices in which he earned good praises from the left and the right. However it's his rocking start as minister of french education that earned him a lot of praises. Early september : Gabriel Attal becomes minister of Education. In the following days, he forbids the possibility to wear abbayas which are cultural/religious signs from the middle east in french schools. The ban is immediate, and surprisingly leads to very few movements of opposition from the ones who weared these. The fear is that children wear abbayas as a way to go around the ban on visible religious signs in school as it is banned before university since 2004. Some days later another child kills himself after being bullied in France as school bullying remains a very difficult problem. It is learned that the french academy administration of the place where this child was harassed had threatened the parents of the child because those parents had told before their child death to the director of the medium school that they would go to the police against his inaction, and in return the school administration had threatened the parents of the child of judicial lawsuit. Gabriel Attal said that this threat on the parents of the child was a "shame" and opened an inquiry on the services of the education administration to make sure that school administration always be on the side of parents of harassed children and not on the side of the school director that covers up this kind of situation. Several days later 5 french policemen arrive in a class where a bully is known in his class for having harassing and issued even pro nazis death threats toward a teenager and arrest the school bully directly in front of everyone, placing handcuffs on him and leading him to the police office for interrogation and temporary detention of the day. The bully collapses into cries and immediately apologies, he is not put into jail but will have to serve community services and get an educator. 85% of french endorse the move, the french government fully assumes the move and Gabriel Attal himself says : There is no serenity without authority. Yesterday the inquiry decided by Gabriel Attal led to reveal that 55 letters on 120 sent the previous year and made by the school administration in the concerned school district to parental families were wrongfully adressed as the administration was threatening parents of either harassed or sexually assaulted children while the 65 others letters were rightfully sent. The french minister insisted that it was time that "fear changes side". Each of the 55 families threatened by the local school administration will receive a meeting with that said school administration. And from now, school districts will be evaluated also in regard to their action against school bullying. In 3 weeks, and a poll from today shows that he became in a month of office the third most liked politician in France behind Edouard Philippe and Marine le Pen and in front of Jordan Bardella and Bruno le Maire who are respectively 4th and 5th most liked policians. He gained 11 points of popularity through his action. 29% consider Gabriel Attal as a good candidate for 2027, the leader remains Edouard Philippe with 50% considering him positively for 2027 but this rapid success definitively put Gabriel Attal as a what if? Identity is not important in France, but it is also considerable to note that he is the only homosexual politician in this list of what if.

I love the diversity of platforms. It really showed that the forum is not more conservative on average, but beyond that, some people can be tough on immigration while being democrats while others can be soft on immigration while being republican. Also but no surprise some people are being much more conservative on abortion than on LGBT rights. Sadly I seem to be one of the very few who tries to fix political appointments in the Supreme Court 😛 I think that I would love to have a Conservative Elector vs Barb election just to imagine how states would vote

First, what major party would you run under in the primaries? Democrats Secondly, Give us your platform using the following topics: Abortion & Planned Parenthood: In favor of a 12 weeks abortion standart, up to 16 weeks in case of medical issue related to the birth (for example risk for the mother) and in favor of a criminal charge for those who interrupt birth against the consent of the mother as well as a delict for the mother if she interrupts the procession of birth beyond the limit fixed by law if it does not already exist. Of course the criminal charge for those who cause abortion against the consent of the mother should be more severely punished by law. Gay marriage and LGBT adoption: In favor of both, and for a constitutionnal amendment to protect it as the Supreme Court is under the threat of partisanship. The federal law compromise of religious freedom coupled with civil rights protections is a good model. Gender transition/identity: In favor of comprehensive sex education in schools to present what transgender is but not to ask children what their gender is according to them, only to explain to them what transgenders persons are, how few they are, what they experience to feel different from their gender. Also in favor of a national law on protecting transgenders in their fundamental rights. And for intervention in school I would be in favor that a transgender person be part of this, also I would prefer that this happens exclusively from the medium school. Both for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders my personnal position is : Keep asking schools from medium schools to make education on who these persons are, explain according to science and consensus why they are attracted (for LGB) or feel to belong to the opposed gender (for transgenders) to promote understanding and respect while separing this fundamental need for education to the topics that create turmoil such as dragqueens in school or asking children to define themselves their sexual or gender belonging which feeds the culture war rethoric. It is however necessary that school specialists be there if teenagers want to express their questions regarding their attraction or gender affiliation but the initiative has to come from the children themselves (out the topic of sex education). Also I think that below the majority or at least the age of 16 someone who feel to be from the wrong gender shouldn't have a physical operation just to be sure that this person is absolutely certain and would not feel any regret in future, it would take down the arguments of people abusively accusing transgenders of trying to push children to change gender. Of course, I would still be in favor that people below that age that are absolutely certain of not being from their gender of birth still be able to look like the opposed gender and ask for accomodation with school authorities and in life in general untill they turn 18. I know that a lot of transgenders feel not belonging to their birth gender at a very young age and so I understand that it is not easy for them. In return of all those precisions, it would be crucial to cut federal aids to states that prevent transgender adults from changing their gender or denying their rights as well as those which would pass "don't say gay" or "don't say trans" laws. Gun laws/regulations: In favor of a ban on assault weapons, and background checks particulary on people with mental disorders. It is time to END school shootings that are increasing more and more in the US. I would understand that americans remain attached to owning a personnal gun for safety. First Amendment/Hate speech/social media censorship: In favor of free speech in all circumstance but to keep diffamation laws for allegations that are unfounded and aim to deter or dirt the personnality of someone. I wouldn't change much so. On terrorism, I would ask social medias to always track groups that plan to put a threat on national security but not beside this. However in the specific case of schools, I would ask social medias to suspend any child or adult that commit school bullying online from social medias. Anti-racism/racism: I would recommend a moderate approach. I would focus on every measures that aim to amplify social mixity and allow children from all background to evoluate. One of the main problem of racism is also that social mobility is broken or not efficient enough. In that aspect I would assume to push to increase education spendings to make schools more efficient and affordable particulary in rural and poorer areas. Government mandates during epidemics/pandemics: I would favor mask mandates and vaccine research when necessary but I would not shutdown the economy unless there's a major evidence and need for that as we can't afford a lot of debt crises. Supreme Court/reform: I would raise to 66 or 70 the number of senators needed to get a Supreme Court nominee to force both parties to find consensual names or focus on an independent commission to select names based on meritocracy. In this end the commission should be formed by a consens from the apropriation committee. Election reform/gerrymandering: I would push for a national independent commission on ending gerrymandering. No one has interest to stop to gerrymander if not all stop at once. Social Security/Welfare/Bailouts: Obamacare needs to be improved with the time and experience. Education/Student Loans: I would push for making contributions equal to parental wages and make sure that parents do not abandon their child for that or refuse to cover for them. It is not normal that rich parents have children who pay the same tuition fees than students from poorer families. I would also make everything possible to slow the student debt crise. I would consider either transforming tuition fees to the equivalent on taxs on the revenue linked to family incomes or increase scholarships for poors or both. Buttigieg 2020 proposal was a good one in this end. Big Pharma/Drug prices: Regulate it. Obamacare: Already said. Drug laws/War on Drugs/Marijuana: In favor to decriminalize it at the federal level but leave it to state by referendums to know if they want to do that or not, not usefull to divide the country over it. Lobbyists/corruption: Keep an annual report on commission made between government agencies and NGOs. Minimum Wage/Unions/Labor: Raise the federal minimum wage with inflation rate, let to state some freedom too. Corporations/Business: Keep low taxes on most business. Environment/Climate: Invest and pass fiscal measures on research and development. Natural Resources/Oil/Alt-energy: Push to reduce natural ressources and increase alt-energy that cost few Co2 emissions including the nuclear energy. Trade/NAFTA/tariffs: In favor of free trade with countries that have the same social standards than the US so the european union, Canada, Japan or Australia and New Zealand for example. Cryptocurrency: No position but this money is too deregulated for being stable. Immigration/Borderwalls/Deportations: I would surprisingly be tougher on this issue. No to borderwalls but increase means for making sure that immigrants become real americans while submitting value tests, language verification and I would favor refugees who want to come to the US because they left a dictatorship or went to be free from oppression rather than economic immigration. I would then favor immigrants who were oppressed for standing for democracy before the ones that come for economic reasons. I would of course keep supporting student immigration and try to make sure that these immigrants can speak english for at least a majority and are well followed to be able to learn and speak it in a short time in order to get citizenship. Police reform: No to defund the police but yes to improve police formations. NATO/UN: In favor of both, probably to give more weight to all countries in NATO to improve their participation. Israel/Palestine: Keep promoting Clinton proposal, Palestine should get statehoood, Israël should be recognized by every countries in return. Russia/Ukraine: All supports to Ukraine untill the end of the conflict. I would increase donations of highly advanced technology particulary in canons and aircrafts which can push for a quicker resolution of the conflict. It is necessary for Ukraine to win the war to preserve international stability. It's because Japan invaded China in 1931 with no resistance that Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1936 and that Austria followed. If Ukraine falls, others countries will get invaded in the future, not by the same countries than in the 30s but there's enough territorial disputes in nowadays worlds. China: I would try to keep a diplomatic discussion with China. Xi Jipping is not Putin, he still hesitates to advocate for international order, this hesitation should be supported by the West as things can still be prevented in China. Taiwan is not yet invaded. Iran: I would be much more in support of Iranian women that are being oppressed and would put more means on controling that Iran does not devellop nuclear arsenal. Syria: I would not propose anything as the country suffered a bloody civil war and not it takes time for stability. I am no fan of Bachar Al Assad but there is no coherent alternative. Terrorism: I would track down any fundamental groups either religious or for the far right and left that threaten to make terrorist acts and would ban them if they show any risk. Foreign Aid: My foreign aid would be conditionnal to the promotion of democracy and environment devellopement. The more countries do efforts, the more I would help them. Infrastructure: Bipartisan deals to continue. Military Spending: I would keep military spending for the time being to settle the war in Ukraine then I would reduce it by 200 billions unless China or Iran raise its military spendings. Domestic Spending: I would focus on education and healthcare as well as developping refugees for LGBT that are being rejected by their families and I would also fund associations that aim to help unemployees and people who suffer past drug addiction to get back to society and recover and rebuild their life. IRS/Fed Reserve/Taxation: I would not do much, there needs to be a balance between the states and the federal level. Taxs have been reduced enough under Trump. Other topics not included above: I think enough is being said.

I will eventually give 2 candidates that might surprise everyone above the ones already mentionned. 1 from the Left and 1 from the Right. The one from the left is. Ségolène Royale, former Socialist candidate from the 2007 presidential election who was defeated largely by Nicolas Sarkozy, former president of a region, former environment cabinet member during François Hollande's presidency. Ségolène is a wild case, she considered herself out of the presidential race in 2015 and was having good words both for Macron and Mélenchon in 2017. She actually collaborated quite a while with Macron in his early years as she became ambassadress for the North and South Pole untill january 2020 where she was removed from her office. Since then she took a shift and aligned with the left and the growing NUPES. Right now Ségolène is playing a bold tactic to which everyone can make its own conclusions. European elections approach and it seems that the NUPES who was born in may 2022 and ran together single candidates in legislative election in June 2022, depriving the president from having a majority in parliament is still not strong enough to form a single list of the left for the european elections in some months. The reason is that while Socialists and Greens have a possible common vision of europe (greens are federalists more or less proclaimed and Socialists are not all federalists but very pro european union and some are federalists), it is absolutely not the case of Mélenchon party which is the biggest eurosceptic party in France now that Le Pen has turned neutral on the EU and the euro. Ukraine is also dividing a lot, Greens and Socialists but particulary the Verts being staunch supporters of Zelensky and Ukraine while Mélenchonist european MPs voting the most in favor of Russia sometimes even at odds with the european MPs that are part of Zemmour party (and so more than Le Pen MEPs). Also communists are not for punishing industry while the rest of the left is more in favor of the advocates to end nuclear energy. So each party of the NUPES is considering running alone this european election which by the way is not depriving them from seats as the vote is proportionnal with a 5% thresholds, only communists barely get 5% while all others are near 10% or more. That's where Ségolène arrived, and offered herself as the unity candidate of the left for the european elections. Mélenchon endorsed it, but Greens, Communists and Socialists remain reluctent. Why is Ségolène trying to prove herself as the unity candidate for the NUPES so the french left for the european election. Is it only for the european election? Or does she looks toward 2027 in the hope to repeat a potential paying gamble of uniting the left in the european election if she ever succeeds? The other potential surprise is for Les Républicains. David Lisnard, mayor of Cannes, president of the association of french mayors. He is trying to revive his party, Les Républicains around some key points that he defends. A clear position on security, a clear position on fiscal conservatism, and a clear position on localism, particulary on decentralization. He basically tries to revive his party around what should be its fundamentals and it's not know if such a gamble can pay off, but it's definitively someone that has a lot of networks all accross France, that is popular and who played outside of the box as he helped several presidential candidates to qualify for the presidential election without forcelly approving them including Eric Zemmour. He definitively has an interesting appeal as he gets his message through without getting caught in any scandal. Several see him as the person who could save the Republicans without alienating its ideology.

I do agree with you on the principle that a Senator is not elected for his/her outfit but for his or her style and ideology as well as personnality. I love ties but I wouldn't force people to wear some, however I love the party color play with the ties, I find this very good. It is true however that an official outfit is not at all confortable to work even more when you have weight variations. I also am a very huge fan of pins. I am glad that this mode is growing rapidly.

I do believe that Mitt Romney made the best choice of his life by becoming a US senator. As a governor, Mitt was saw as an effective and bipartisan governor, he did a lot of good things. But as a nominee he happened to be forced back to take positions displayed into videos that do not look good for his reputation like this one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EveU0_FQRZU This kind of video was terrible for the image that Mitt would like to display, because he had become this generic kind of regular partisan republican. However his single term in the US senate allowed him to go back in light as one of the builder for bipartisanism, and to be honest, I never expected him to be such a cross-partisan senator. During Trump term he used to vote a lot for his party agenda but he didn't bring anything substantial, he could be replaced. But his post 2020 action in the senate in every infrastructure bills, recovery bills but also in two very particular moments such as the vote on protecting several fundamental rights in the federal law and the vote on confirming Kentanji B. Jackson definitively made him one of the great senators of the 21st century. He earned my respect in pushing his Church to adopt a secular and respectfull position on protecting the federal law in return of religious freedom and I find it shamefull that republican senators left the senate when Brown was confirmed, they may disagree with her they could have respected the fact that the first ever african american woman would serve in the Supreme Court even if they voted against her for ideological reasons. Mitt Romney definitively saved his political legacy in his 3 last years in the senate, and I am hopefull he goes on with his last 18 months and his gained freedom.

Hello all ! I know a lot of you do not know about all the specifics of french politic so I decided to make a sum up of the french political scene for those who would get news without informations with all the candidates that could get to be known for 2027. CONTEXT 2022 marked the definitive realignment of French politics, which had already been beginning to realign since 2017. In 2017 the Socialist Party and Les Républicains, which structured a right-left bipartisanship, collapsed in favour of the Macron-Le Pen duel, which pitted a kind of liberal centre against a strong, conservative right that was fuzzy on economic issues. In 2022, a number of things have happened that have restructured the political field. I'm going to summarise the changes from the far right to the far left as concisely as possible before moving on to the candidates for 2027. RIght-Wing conservatism to far-right. After her defeat in 2017, Marine le Pen decided to "normalise" her party by adopting a series of strong decisions to change the political line. Her eurosceptic party abandoned all plans to leave the euro and the European Union, which remained unclear, causing some people to leave. The party also set aside a large part of the social issues and, even if immigration was not abandoned, the issue became less important in Marine le Pen's message in favour of a focus on purchasing power and more general security, particularly identity. Initially, this strategy did not pay off in the intermediate elections, but it triumphed in the presidential elections, where Marine le Pen gained 8 points in 5 years, and in the legislative elections, where her party went from 8 to 89 MPs. However, her message on society and immigration remains highly ambiguous. For example, the party voted in favour of criminalising conversion therapies and is clear only on identity, immigration and purchasing power, but remains vague on foreign policy, social issues and the economy. It is the economic vagueness of Marine le Pen's party and a more measured discourse on immigration that has enabled Eric Zemmour and the Reconquête party to launch in October 2021. Unlike the Rassemblement National (Marine le Pen's party), Eric Zemmour's party is extremely clear. Very right-wing on immigration and society as well as economy. This positioning gives the party between 5 and 7% of voting intentions, but Marine le Pen refuses to make a pact with Eric Zemmour for different economic and personal reasons. Marine le Pen declined making any alliance with Zemmour and it payed off as his party lost all their seats including Zemmour who narrowly lost his constituency which became a Marine le Pen gain. In the end, the Republicans remained trapped between these 3 parties. The liberals having an interesting offer in Macron and the conservatives having an interesting offer in Zemmour. The party suffered as a result, even though it managed to retain around sixty MPs. It still has to decide how to preserve its specific identity and relaunch itself. The Center coalition Much easier to explain. The centrist coalition has been solidified since 2017, with 4 parties from the right to the left. Agir: A party of ex-Republicans who want to work with the presidential majority. Horizons : The party created by former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, which has somewhat taken over from Agir and has become a new major centre-right party in the presidential coalition. Renaissance: This is the presidential party. In fact, from October 2022 the party switched from En Marche, the citizens' movement, to a fully-fledged professional party with paid membership. The sign of the party's professionalisation and, above all, its change of name testifies to the fact that the party's vocation is to survive Emmanuel Macron's period in power. MODEM: A more centre-left party led by François Bayrou, MODEM is a more localist and social democratic party. The oldest of the four parties, it has had a solid voter base for over 15 years and has 40 MPs in the National Assembly. The Left-Wing coalition. The left-wing coalition is the most recently formed of the 3 coalitions, but it has several dynamics. 4 parties are in an alliance formed around Jean Luc Mélenchon and France Insoumise called the New Popular Economic and Social Union or also NUPES. The Socialist Party: This is the party that ruled France from 2012 to 2017. It still has many mayors and regional and departmental representatives. But it is more a party of elected officials than of activists. Like Les Républicains, the party is stuck between alternatives on the left and right and is no longer able to unite a large panel of voters. The leader of the party, Olivier Faure, for his part, seems to be betting that following France Insoumise in NUPES, what divides his party. The party is rather social democratic but has made a fairly clear shift to the left while remaining the most moderate left-wing party on the economy. Europe Ecology the Greens: Very Europeanist, very progressive, the party is however divided between a moderate current on productivity issues and a very radical de-escalating current. There is consensus in the party that France must abandon nuclear power, or at least for 75% of members. La France Insoumise: As much as the Greens and the Socialists have common ground, France Insoumise clearly stands out with positions favorable to Russia, eurosceptic, and support for "strong" left-wing regimes like Maduro in Venezuela. France Insoumise is crossed by two currents, a current very focused on societal issues, particularly in the suburbs, and another more socialist current elected in more rural areas. The French Communist Party: Curiously, the Communist Party seems to be the most "pro-growth" party and the most right-wing on French identity of the 4 NUPES parties. The party has estimated since 2022 that playing the side of productivity, by being the only pro-nuclear party in NUPES, and by claiming an attachment to the French culinary region among other things, helps it to re-distinguish itself among a whole part of the electorate left-wingers who don't really have any alternatives. NUPES still holds but it is strongly divided on the European Union, the war in Ukraine, nuclear energy and even sometimes on certain questions of orders or identity. France Insoumise and the Communists are very opposed on several issues, the Greens and the Socialists have good mutual understanding but the question of Ukraine separates them from France Insoumise. NOW the potential candidates for 2027. Much easier to sum-up now that all informations are being said about parties. Rassemblement National (Marine le Pen party) Marine le Pen seems to be trying to run for the 4th time in 2027. Probably the last one but the one she could have the highest chances. By having a center-left economic program coupled with a right-wing conservative program on identity and society, Marine le Pen hopes to gain enough reports from left-wing economic voters who started reporting to her in the runoff of 2022 to close the gap by 2027. In my opinion she will never have enough to win but she adopted a tactic to look reasonnable since years and benefits from her parliamentary group to increase this impression, and so far her tactic works. According to french, she is the first alternative. She has a successor however. Jordan Bardella, only 27 years old. He's young, and does not seem to be very conservative on social issues. He successfully ran the party in the 2019 european election, he's the son of italian immigration in France and grew up in the french suburb, a territory where Jean Luc Mélenchon has high scores. He is from the parisian region too, and is seen by a lot as the natural successor of Marine le Pen. He is essentially clear on immigration and identity but not so much on others things, people don't know his economic beliefs for example. Reconquête Eric Zemmour is clearly candidate for 2027. His belief is that immigration issues will grow and he could with the time get more than his 7%. He is absolutely uncontested and unchallenged in his party. However, if anyone could replace him, it would be. Marion Maréchal Le Pen the niece of Marine le Pen yes. Since long Marion Maréchal couldn't endorse her aunt economic and fiscal position. Marion Maréchal is a far-right politician in the US way, both to the economic and social spectrum. She is the second most important person in Zemmour party and is option B if Zemmour renounces to run in 2027. LR (unknown) Considering the situation, it is unknown if the party will have a candidate in 2027. CENTER COALITION. 3 names are very talked about. Edouard Philippe, former Les Républicains, former Prime Minister of Emmanuel Macron who retired in 2020 to become mayor of his home town. He is well beloved by french as he is a humble person, he formerly went in the Socialist party before to join Les Républicains but as a moderate and served as MP untill 2017 where he joined Emmanuel Macron after the first round of the presidential election. He is a moderate who created his own party and he is by far the best candidate to defeat Marine le Pen. Sadly however he suffers from a sickness, not an important one as it does not cause pain or make him weaker but it made him lose all his hairs and its color in five little years. Five years ago he still had a beard and his eyebrowns and hairs and these were still colored. He opened up about it on french TV it's called hallopecia. It didn't hurt his polling numbers at all and his new party Horizons is his platform to go. He always been a moderate on all issues and prooved it by abstaining on same sex mariage in 2013 while most of his party voted against. However Renaissance, the original party of Macron has 2 serious candidates that could also want to come after the second term of president Emmanuel Macron. Bruno le Maire, french minister of Finances. He is seen as a liberal in all forms. He is assumed as a finance reformer but he always been moderate or really liberal on society as he also abstained on same sex marriage in 2013 when socialists proposed it like Edouard Philippe. He is the most popular inside the party and remains quite a simple person who tries to communicate a lot on the economic reforms of the government particulary against inflation rates. He is seen as the most likely option in Renaissance but there is someone else that is seen as a serious candidate. Gerald Darmanin, minister of the french interior. He is more the right-wing of the party. Clear on immigration, he even mocked Le Pen in an identity debate in 2021 saying that she was "too-soft" on secularism. He comes from Les Républicains like Edouard Philippe and Bruno le Maire but he was less of a moderate than them. He voted against same sex marriage in 2013 and apologized for it in 2023. On immigration and identity he has a very tough rethoric which plays well with the electorate and received good words from Nicolas Sarkozy whom he has been a long supporter. He also has previously been elected as a mayor and a LR MP prior to join Emmanuel Macron in 2017. It seems clear that he is the one of the 3 candidates of the presidential coalition that has the most opened up about his will to run in 2027 so far. FRENCH LEFT. Former Socialist Prime Minister for the last six months of François Hollande, Bernard Cazeneuve is part of the former Socialists who want to rebuild a "left of government". He is considering to run as a candidate to reunite a french left around the center-left contrary to what it is currently. COALITION OF THE NUPES. I will go much easier. There are 2 Greens and 2 France Insoumise that are seen as potential big candidates. I will start with the 2 Greens then the 2 LFI. Yanick Jadot, the Green european MP is considering running again in 2027. He scored 4,6% in 2022 and arrived close to Valérie Pécresse but didn't do enough to get beyond 5% due to tactical vote for Mélenchon. Jadot tries to be a broad green candidate, he tries to reach from moderate social democrates to anti-growth climate activists. He put a lot of personnal focus both on human-rights and environment all in the same time. He however is in a party that is opposed to nuclear energy and where the use of cars is more and more denounced. Sandrine Rousseau is his main opponent. She represents the left-wing of Europe Ecologie les Verts and she scored 49% against him in the primary in 2021. She does believe that she had got more time she would have defeated him. She represents the assumed radicalism. She advocates to abolish a lot of things that are considered as toxic masculinity, she is a lot more radical on fighting pro-growth policies that pollute but on the other side she remains in coherence with her party on foreign policy, she particulary advocates like her whole party on supporting Ukraine to the end of the conflict. She is much closer to La France Insoumise for others reasons however. And then we can close with the 2 main France Insoumise potential candidates. Of course Jean Luc Mélenchon. Like Marine le Pen he tries to be president since 2012. A former socialist who created his own party then took over the left progressively with the unpopularity of François Hollande in government and the fall of the socialists in supports. Jean Luc Mélenchon has for himself to be a compromise between the social and economic wings of his party, however his behavior and tactic of the constant opposition somewhat in street movements has costed him a lot of approval from the french who are a lot polarized in favor or against him and sometimes more than Marine le Pen. His main alternative is. François Ruffin. LFI MP since 2017, he is seen as the kind of old socialist politician that tries to win over economic issues before social ones. He made himself a name by winning a rural constituency in a department dominated by the vote in favor of Marine le Pen party. He definitively belongs more to the economic socialist than social progressive wing of his party. He tries to push his party to adopt a softer approach to law and order and focus his efforts on painting Marine le Pen as a fake ally of social classes and tries to win back a lot of voters who are Le Pen voters but who remain left-wing on economic issues. This strategy costs him the opposition of several social progressives in the party even if he is not a social conservative at all obviously. Here is so far the obvious options that appear for 2027, I hope it helped you !

I do not imagine how the war in Ukraine would have went with Trump still acting as president. It could have gone both ways depending of Trump mod, he could have either be more militarist than Biden or the complete opposite depending of the evolution of his consideration. But @vcczar I think a lot of people are interested about the 2012 timeline where Romney becomes president aswell with a competitive 2016 presidential election and no MAGA movement as it is today. It also directly impacts Afghanistan but the situation with Russia in Ukraine in 2014 aswell as Romney had a very clear and early position on the matter.

My guess is that they get money because they have low taxs as deep republican states and so low incomes in the state. They also probably have more agricultors who need public fundings. On the question of why they favor the federal government is a good question, I would say it is because it is not in the political interest of republicans or democrats to play statehood discriminations because they have national ambitions. It can works for Alberta in Canada for example because there's a local conservative party and the PM of Alberta has few interests in national elections considering that in the US state parties are much more nationalized now contrary to Canada. Or in Catalunya because independentists there don't want to be popular outside of Catalunya.

Interesting that you drop the GOP from 1968 to 1972. I would personnaly keep republicans in competitive option untill 1980. Basically untill Ford vs Carter as the last election between two potentials options I could vote for as a lifetime democrat in nowadays terms.

If there's one president I think could switch to Trumpism it could be Andrew Jackson.

It's amusing how almost everyone agrees that JFK would still be a democrat nowadays. I do agree by that, and I did vote for everyone else. The point for me is that democrats started becoming what they are from the FDR era, progressively they became more and more tolerant on society at the exception of some southern democrats like Thurmond but those had already started deflecting from the party as soon as the 40s and 50s. I think that JFK despite the debate on abortion would have remained a democrat, certainly a more blue dog but he would have remained with the democratic party of today. I strongly believe that Abraham Lincoln would be a democrat as of today both in link to his cultural and federal visions and his stance on rights. Maybe that Lincoln was pro business but his handling of the US was quite centralist even if explained by the period, also he definitively would have become a liberal by the time considering how he behaved in his time. I always believe that Eisenhower could have become a democratic or a republican president, he was quite a centrist president who could embrace both major party legacies already in 1952 so today he would be a perfect match. An interesting question is what Reagan would do today, I think he would behave like the Bush in their time, still republican but not voting for Trump. Ford could probably be a democrat as of today. Calvin Coolidge would certainly be a libertarian at this point. I don't know if Wilson would be a democrat or a republican. On all issues but economy and some issues on foreign policy (but not all) he would be a republican compared to today.

I am agnostic. I don't pretend I know that God exists or does not, but I do not believe that God is omnipotent if he exists. The reason why is that history saw too many horrors to believe that an omnipotent God would accept to stay passive. Excepted of course if you believe that God let free wills and waits for the final judgment or death to judge you. I also believe that religious texts contain a part of human societal and political writings at some extents, some do admit it like the Bible. I also believe at some extends that there can not be plural heavens if there is one. But several religions say that in order to go to heaven you must be a believer of the religion (not the catholic doctrine however which adopted a wise position to say that you have to seek God to get to heaven). I wonder if the religious doctrine has found to explain how a soul can remain in the body of someone whose personnality has disappeared or almost disappeared due to mental serious diceases.

Thank you for sharing your opinion Hestia ! It is not only this but the way judges in a lot of countries are considered as political agents more and more. In the US Senate it is showed by the way senators are more and more divided over appointing Supreme Court nominees, and how in the end this polarization produces judicial instability like the overturn of Roe v Wade. Of course I am not only pointing one party here, the last years also showed a partisan race for appointing federal judges in the US senate.

The alignment of questions is notable, and shows how much political custom in the US has progressively switched since the 60s and 90s from caring about the ethic of what the Supreme Court judge did, to what the Supreme Court judge thinks and if I agree with his political views. Namely - If this Judge thinks like me, he can do what he wants. It's the sign of the social growth of the politization of the judiciary in the United States (but not only the US) which makes that nowadays the political alignment of judges is more important for a lot of people than any consideration about their ethic.

The point about 2000 to be honest will forever be unknown. At 300 votes close and democrats picking wrong systems to vote and recount we will never be sure that Florida was not going to Al Gore. I would disagree with social unrest but remain waiting for Ukraine to see if they can pull a major victory in the year to come. Afghanistan compared to Ukraine actually is brutal. When 350 000 afghan forces with 20 years of military equipment flee in front of 70 000 talibans while 300 000 ukrainians holded to the least 150 000 to 200 000 russians in the war theater considering that about 750 000 russians already fought in Ukraine and that they were only prepared and equiped from 7 years, not even mostly by the US as France has been the first military partner of Ukrainian equipment BEFORE the war breaks, we can see that the failure of Aghanistan was also the failure of a state that was too weak to keep up. Ukraine is the best example why Biden was actually right to say most of Afghan troops did not want to preserve their republic unlike ukrainians.

It's indeed a W Bush victory but

Yes I saw that @Pringles and actually this scares me off When I was younger I was angry about how wokes were hijacking the progressive movement. But now I am more afraid by the way every hatefull person can use trivial stuffs to fight against liberalism and societal progressivism. Like it is okay to have cartoon characters who are LGBT or a kiss in a disney movie or add some more black people in roles that are not already known as whites. It is not okay to put girls in the lost boys of Peter Pan or switch Tinker Bell (I think no one would have complained if they hired black children in the lost boys instead). They did the same in the Last of Us serie, and this feeds the ones who are obssessed with culture war who ends up assimilating everyone to these examples. Wokes are for me what MAGA are for you, they hijack the real points of a movement.

Almost all would vote for Biden over Trump Romney on the other side it would be much more divided What leads me is the institutionnal question, Trump clearly challenged the institutionnal structure of the United States so most of these people would certainly be anti-Trump but not forcelly democrats that's my point. 2 things are important to take into account, they were intellectual elites made of a lot of liberalist thinkings, but they also were in the XVIIIth century society. It's hard to imagine how they would have evolved with their society, the most societal progressives of that time were in France where lawmakers abolished all religious crimes by 1791 but the american political class was much more religious, so Thomas Jefferson, despite having terribly conservative positions for nowadays and even conservative when compared to french revolutionnaries could be societally progressive nowadays. Only one thing I am certain, Washington would remain unaffiliated, and I bet that Lincoln would be democrat, but I don't know if Truman would still be democrat nowaday (more Truman than Kennedy). Andrew Jakson would certainly love Trump and the first democratic president could have become a MAGA supporter but he was not particulary fond of US institutions unlike the founding fathers who for a very important part were liberal elites. I do see Hamilton a democrat definitively as of 2023. A lot of Hamilton positions even for his time align with the current democratic party. But for several others who lived in their society of the end of the XVIIIth century it's very hard to predict. Lafayette however would definitively be a Democrat. Third way democrat like Clinton. If you pay attention to the rest of his political life he was moderate monarchist (1789-1815) but after french restauration he progressively became a left-wing opponent to Louis XVIII and Charles X and by 1830 he was almost the republican candidate, there really was a time where France was between president Lafayette backed by republicans and king Louis Philippe I backed by deputies, Lafayette had become republican by the end of his life, influenced by the United States experience.

Traditionnaly most reasons for secessions shift with the time @vcczar In Quebec in 1960 it was mostly led by the idea of decolonization. Africa is decolonized, so should be francophones who by the time were real poor ones. There is a book about it called the "White negros of America" written at this time. Then the idea nowadays is no longer about it but shifted on others topics, mainly three key issues : Protecting french language and so control immigration in Quebec, and leave a Canada which has oil energies, this is the new main argument of independentists in Quebec. For Catalunya the two motors of independence are the reject of their autonomy status in 2010, the catalan language and culture and the economic crisis where Catalunya pays more than it receives. Now it has been showed with Brexit that even when you are a net contributor to an inter-states or international budget as part of a common economic zone, it's not always sure that independence will give you additionnal money. Most independences in my opinion are not driven by economic interests first, but by identity, autonomy or political freedom ones. The first reason why Quebec wanted to seceede in 1995 was the betrayal of the attempt to give good compromises to Quebec into the Canadian constitution. The reason why almost half of Scotland wanted to seecede was a mixt of cultural identity but also a real societal difference in economic choices in the long run and some news which served to trigger and amplify these long run sentiments. In the US it is true that Texas and California are not the same, but with all population's movements I would say that an american from Philadelphia is closer to another one from Phoenix or Los Angeles or Nashville than he is from an american of rural Pennsylvania who would be closer to an american citizen from the rural south. It tends to change particulary in the Western Coast and in New England, where rural areas tend to become more liberal, but the whole midwest and central US keeps a real rural vs cities divide.