Liberal Republican Vs. Conservative Democrat

[WVProgressive]

Since I know most of this forum is made up of moderate-to-liberal Democrats, I wanted to see how people would vote in a hypothetical election between a fiscally moderate-socially liberal Republican ticket, and a socially conservative-fiscally moderate Democratic ticket.

[vcczar]

This was difficult. In the first question, the Republicans look better to me, but the government would be filled with more Democrats under Manchin than they would under the Republicans. So while, Manchin might be more conservative in some ways, the government would likely move more leftward as an organism under Democrats, even if Manchin is more conservative than Scott in many ways. In the 2nd question, I voted assuming that the 3rd parties have no shot at 270. If all have an equal shot, then I vote Green. 

[WVProgressive]

Just now, Patine said:

What does the, "P," in the Gabbard/Williamson stand for, exactly? Progressive? Populist? Something else?

People's Party, its a progressive-populist party formed out of former Bernie supporters who refuse to support the Democrats. I believe its only on the ballot in California currently.

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

It would be a dubious election, indeed.

Don't forget to take the poll.

[jvikings1]

I'd be tempted to support Tulsi Gabbard depending on what platform she ran on. Lately she's been spot on about a lot of key topics: on the attempted extradition of Julian Assange, anti-warmongering, anti-Patriot Act, anti-Build Back Better, and on Kyle Rittenhouse's innocence (and thus consistent on criminal justice reform)

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I'd be tempted to support Tulsi Gabbard depending on what platform she ran on. Lately she's been spot on about a lot of key topics: on the attempted extradition of Julian Assange, anti-warmongering, anti-Patriot Act, anti-Build Back Better, and on Kyle Rittenhouse's innocence (and thus consistent on criminal justice reform)

Wouldn't she also be ultra-progressive in areas, so much so, that she would make Biden or Obama seem like a conservative? In some ways, she's more like Sanders or Warren. I've always found it odd that conservatives like Gabbard so much, you'd think there'd be more than enough to cancel out the parts you like. Maybe she's changed since the 2020 election. 

[jvikings1]

42 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Wouldn't she also be ultra-progressive in areas, so much so, that she would make Biden or Obama seem like a conservative? In some ways, she's more like Sanders or Warren. I've always found it odd that conservatives like Gabbard so much, you'd think there'd be more than enough to cancel out the parts you like. Maybe she's changed since the 2020 election. 

In some ways yes, and that is why I only said I'd be tempted based on her platform. On a number of social issues, I am fine with a more liberal stance (ending the drug war, criminal justice reform, police reform, opposition to mass surveillance, opposition to interventionism, etc.). There would be a few social issues I'd have to be reassured on and I'd need to see an economic proposal before I would seriously consider supporting her. But it isn't out of the question (something very rare for me when it comes to Dems, not that there are a lot of Republicans I support either).

[Edouard]

I would be interested by such an electoral map with those candidates actually

[Dobs]

12 minutes ago, Edouard said:

I would be interested by such an electoral map with those candidates actually

I took some creative liberties but assuming that this is a less polarized world to even allow these nominations, I might propose something like this-

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Perhaps the traditional political spectrum, has long defined, cherished, and even defended, is becoming, over time, an obsolescence, and the political battleground should move away from fighting the classic, "left vs. right," on every front, because that struggle is becoming unproductive, and holding society back. Perhaps Gabbard, and other, "hybrid," candidates, in the U.S., and ESPECIALLY in other countries, are the wave of the future. My own personal socio-political and economic are, in totality, somewhat of a, "Frankenstein's Monster hybrid," view, themselves.

Mine aren’t in line with standard left right politics either.  I’ve often enough up my idea of an opt-out and exception clauses which actually give an olive branch to the states, far more than most progressives would allow.
 

It’s mainly because to me progressive means moving forward, not stalling or moving back. I think by allowing opt outs and exceptions in some cases would make states generally more willing to go with the federal government since it isn’t a forced situation.

The goal would be for the federal government to create something better than a state alternative. My opt out clause would allow states to opt out of a law but at the expense of some of their annual federal funding (not equal to but some sort of token amount decided by congress or the executive). 

As a voter, I’m basically focused explicitly on social liberalism. Economics 2nd, except where it overlaps with the first. Foreign policy is my least of the three. Domestic is what matters to me in an administration. This is partially why I view LBJ better than some other progressives do. 

[themiddlepolitical]

In the current climate I think Republicans winning this would be beneficial, for the hopeful fact that this would move Republicans overall more towards the center, bringing the overall political ideology of parties more left.