Single payer universal health care is the number 1 political issue in my opinion. The only serious problem I have with the hypothetical candidate is his anti-abortion stance, but it’s not a big enough issue to outbalance his favoring UHC. More people in the USA go bankrupt due to medical bills than any other reason, and of those bankruptcies, most of them had medical insurance at the time.
I pick the new guy. I doubt he can do too much damage to womens rights because everything would be filibustered in congress by democrats, plus the courts are the ones with the real power on that issue.
He would move the overton window to the left, which would push other politicians to the left. I don’t think he’d have much power to pass legislation, but he could use his executive powers in an efficient way and get some things done.
Because, I don’t know, maybe that was the question he was wondering about? Why do you assume that he has an ulterior motive? Do all of your posts have some meaning that you are hiding from everyone else? Mine sure don’t.
There is not a republican candidate for the nomination who is in any way better than Obama. The republican candidates running for the nomination are the sorriest group imaginable. There will be no imaginary candidate so why postulate one? It is what it is.
If I’ve been given these godlike powers, to either install this hypothetical Dem in the White House, or literally have to flip a coin to determine whether Obama or Romney will be the next President, then I’m installing this guy in the White House.
A Republican Presidency of any sort right now would be a disaster from a Dem POV. If I can decide between a 50% chance of a Republican President, and a 0% chance of a Republican President, I’m taking the latter.
But getting back to real life for a moment:
Bingo.
The only thing I’d add is that there is quite literally no person in the United States of America that would make a better candidate for any of those ‘we need someone in between the two parties who can unite us all’ types than the sitting President of the United States. Inevitably, they come up with a hypothetical agenda for a hypothetical third party of the center that differs from Obama’s existing positions by no more than a few angstroms, but seem to feel the need to blame both parties for the state of our politics today.
You could have just asked whether I’d be willing to trade gay marriage and abortion for stronger anti-war cred, a bit more whiteness, and more “experience”. (the latter being in scare quotes because the experience of a state governor is far overstated for the job of POTUS). Instead we get these elaborate hypotheticals that are inevitably bait for a “librul hypocrisy” trap.
And I would have to say no, I would still pass over more-qualified candidates who more or less agree with my current views, because as a liberal I must confess that when I think about Obama, the anointed messiah, I get a little googly-headed and find myself unable to perform any kind of real critical evaluation. Is that roughly the response you were fishing for?
That selfish reason for you applies. To millions of other Americans and more importantly universal health care is the ONLY thing that will save America.
I prefer this imaginary guy to Obama on all domestic issues but prefer Obama on all foreign policy and national security issues. Maybe we can let him be obama’s imaginary domestic policy advisor.
[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi;]
14672608 He is a very faithful Catholic and this shows in his political views which are in general very liberal especially for America.
[/QUOTE]
You lost me here. Is being opposed to birth control and abortion (as just two examples) now considered “very liberal”? “Very faithful” anything except for American is probably a deal breaker for me.
In any case, Obama, or in your scenario, the coin toss. I’d just as soon have Mitt as this guy. One true test of a president, for me, is whether he can avoid major wars. Some presidents (I’m not naming names) seemed hungry for war. Some candidates today seem hungry for war. They just can’t wait to get their hands on the means. Obama has shown some restrant with the military and I’d like to have a little peace for the next 4 years.
I’m not a single-issue voter, but the hypothetical candidate you describe is very intriguing to me. I’m anti-abortion but not necessarily anti-choice. The hangup is, of course, that such a President would never be able to put all those things you list into effect. UHC isn’t going to fly (not yet), abortion is not going to be outlawed, and those things certainly won’t happen under the same administration.
I’m not going to vote for a hypothetical over Obama, who overall has not done too badly with a very poor hand he was dealt.
ETA: maybe I misunderstood the OP. I’d definitely lean toward this hypothetical guy if there was a 50% chance of getting Romney. “Faithful Catholic” does not bother me in the least, and I still don’t think he’s going to overturn Roe v. Wade.
He resembles Harry Truman in that he has some political positions that are similar to mine, but it’s as dumb as a box of rocks?
No, thanks. I don’t need to consider the abortion issue, I like smart presidents.
Waitaminute. Does this unicorn-candidate BECOME President by my choosing him, or does he just run against Romney?
Having a (real-life, as opposed to fantasy-hypothetical) Republican EVER be elected to the Presidency again is completely unacceptable.
From the OP:
Seems like it’s a choice between a 100% guaranteed Hypothetical Dem and a 50-50 chance of Romney.
BTW, how is this about the “Non-GOP Right”? This dude you’re describing here is some kinda Republican or Democrat, could be either. The Non-GOP Right includes Nazis, White Nationalists, Minutemen, the Libertarian Party, the religious-right Constitution Party – not anybody who could be in any way characterized as a centrist or a moderate.
Could the OP please clarify the hypothetical candidate’s stand on contraception. Is it the “official” Catholic position? Government subsidizing of birth control OK?
No I was just curious to see how important high-emotion social issues as opposed economic issues are to Democrats and liberals.
How was Harry Truman “dumb”? He didn’t go to college but neither did George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and from his record he did very well. And I meant Harry Truman as I’ve said in his speaking style of fiery populist rhetoric rather than his education level.
Yes he’s guaranteed to win.
I was using that thread title because it based on another thread (linked in the OP) by another poster which used that title.
Yes he supports government support for birth control.
Despite his wrong-headed stances on social wedge issues, I’d take Mr. X over a 50% chance of Romney. BTW, “Obama’s war in Libya” made much more sense than Bush’s adventure in Iraq. Do you disagree, Qin?
Do let’s emphasize again that it is very unfortunate that social wedge issues like gay marriage, gun rights and even abortion play such a strong role in American politics. Some issues are far more urgent, and anyway, with the exception of his Supreme Court appointments, a President has relatively little power on these matters. (And, though their stance on social wedge issues may get publicity, it is the pro-corporation, anti-people stance of GWB’s Judges that is so saddening. Moreover, even right-wing Justices now seem to agree that Roe-v-Wade is settled law.)
And public stance on issues is not the only criterion for selecting a President. I took the “find your soulmate among Pres. candidates” quiz and aligned closer to Gingrich than any other Republican, yet would want to vomit every time I thought of him, were he to be President.
Truman may not have been an intellectual, but generally made excellent decisions, played a key role in the early containment of communism, and his Marshall Plan was a successful investment almost amazing in its wisdom. Truman is widely regarded as one of America’s greatest Presidents.
Yes I agree. President Obama intervened without a massive and costly effort and with full international support and goodwill
That “guarantee” to win looks too much like leprechaun gold (as envisioned by Rowling) for my taste. As does the coin toss for Obama/Romney.
I’m going to fight the hypothetical and stick with President Obama.