Extreme vs. Extreme in 2016

Politics & Elections
1

That’s right - it’s crazy hypothetical time. What if, by some magical coincidence, in 2016 both the Democrats and Republicans nominated extreme members of their parties for President? Let’s say Elizabeth Warren vs. Ted Cruz. You can choose whichever running mates you think the candidates would realistically pick.

Would turnout be high, due to the extremity of the options? Or low, because moderate voters would feel isolated and paralyzed? Would a moderate third party candidate collect more votes than usual? Would all the news pundit’s heads explode in some gory yet entertaining television?

Only time will tell. Well, and the poll. Be aware - the poll is not who you’d vote for or want to win. It’s who you’d expect to win.

For what it’s worth, I’d call it for Warren - and I don’t think it’s just wishful thinking. Third parties are too far out of the mainstream to be seriously considered by most voters, even in a situation like this. It’d be tight between Cruz and Warren, but I think the sheer terror of Ted Cruz in office would motivate many lukewarm not-really-Democrats to go to the polling stations. Either way, it’d be something to watch.

(Also: I’m very proud of that rhyming thread title. Just wanted to point that out . . . ;))

2

Could you please list the five most extreme platforms of each candidate?

3

Sure! The third party candidate could be a large number of people, but I’ll do Cruz and Warren. In no particular order . . .
Cruz:

Pro-life in all cases except in endangerment of woman’s life; no exceptions for rape.

Is strongly against the ACA; one of the central themes of his campaign is its repeal.

Supports gun rights; has made clear in various campaign speeches that he would go to extremes to prevent infringement of these rights.

Is against any sort of pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US; has been vague on plans for immigration reform.

Believes that reducing the national debt belongs at the forefront of a healthy America. Has stated he’d reduce federal involvement in the economy and rely on the strength of the free market.

Believes that Climate Change is not supported by data and not a priority for any nation; supports decreasing environmental regulations imposed by the EPA.

Note: Although Cruz has made it clear that he, personally, disapproves of gay marriage, he says that as President, he would respect state’s rights to do as they please.

Warren:

Her campaign is largely based around the idea that the 2008 financial collapse was caused primarily by deregulation rather than the boom-bust cycle; she has outlined and proposed a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act as a solution.

Is a strong proponent of gun control; supports rigorous background screenings and a ban on extended magazine long rifles weapons.

Favors the DREAM act as one of many positive steps towards immigration reform.

Favors subsidizing clean energy alternatives rather than what she terms “Big Oil”. In campaign speeches, she’s not been clear on how fast this shift would occur, or how high a priority it would be.

Is staunchly pro-choice. Warren has stated she is in favor of churches providing birth control, and that she would not appoint a Supreme Court Justice who was pro-life.

4

OK, you’ve made the case for *one *of them to be extreme. Unfortunately you’re indulging in the false equivalency fallacy, though.

5

As a diehard liberal who would easily vote for Warren, I would sadly expect Cruz to win in this matchup.

Though really, if you want to posit extreme vs. extreme, why is the Democratic candidate not Bernie Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich?

6

If both candidates actually ran based on their current political personas, Cruz would win.

In the real world, Warren would tack hard to the center. Her Oklahoma accent would even come back. THat would make it a toss-up, extremist vs. flip flopper.

7

Fair point. In reality, Warren’s not extreme - but in the current political climate, rational or not, she’s the most left-wing candidate who has an even semi-realistic chance to get the candidacy.

While Kucinich is an interesting idea, I feel as though after two failed runs, he’s unlikely to try again - I’m trying to keep this to politicians who realistically could run in the near future, otherwise we could get a lot more extreme.

Bernie Sanders himself says he hasn’t got a chance and, if he runs, will run to guide the discussion. Cruz vs. Sanders wouldn’t really be too interesting a poll, in my mind, simply because the public would overwhelmingly vote Cruz. All he’d have to do is say that dreaded word - “socialist” - and the race would be over. Warren’s a long shot, but she’s still a shot. A socialist - even a semi-kinda socialist like Sanders - hasn’t got an ice cube’s chance in Hell as things currently stand. This is a crazy hypothetical, but not that crazy. :smiley:

8

I’m going to say Elizabeth Warren, but not for the reasons you might think.

First, people are going to run screaming from a Scientologist like T. Cruise, who is also too short to be President.

Then, when they figure out that’s not the same guy, they’re going to run screaming from a Hispanic Canadian “Manchurian Candidate” sleeper agent for Fidel Castro who has been groomed from birth to infiltrate the conservative movement and destroy from within. Ever notice how much a parody of a right-winger Rafael Cruz père is, for a former Communist revolutionary? That clever little Spaniard is up to something!

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, looks like, and pretty much is, a schoolteacher.

Superficial appearances, misunderstandings, and stereotypes win the day.

(Sometimes also dirty jokes, which is why a GOP politician with a name very much like Johnny Walker Pubes can coast into the White House. But given a choice between voting for a cruise or for warrin’, I don’t think Rafael Edward Cruz has an edge.)

9

Well let’s say we’re not using “extreme” as measured WRT to objective reality or sanity, but WRT to the actually existing center-of-gravity of American politics.

10

Except that conservatives would say the same likewise.

11

I wouldn’t, but maybe us conservatives are just more self-aware. Liz Warren is extreme. Her ideas on student loans and increasing SS benefits are about pretty whacko ideas. Apparently she hates taxpayers.

12

I know you are just repeating back what you hear and read almost every single day…but do you understand how bizarre a statement that really is? Why in the world would she “hate” taxpayers?

13

Students are bad loan risks. That’s why the government is involved in the student loan industry. If you allow students to borrow at the same rate as the far more creditworthy banking industry, then you put taxpayers on the hook for big losses.

In order to increase Social Security benefits, you have to increase payroll taxes.

Both of these are anti-taxpayer in the extreme.

14

That doesn’t answer my question-Why would she hate taxpayers? Where in the world would this hatred come from, and how could she possibly benefit from it? She isn’t some one-dimensional television caricature of a politician, so explain the reason for this supposed “hate”.

15

Between Cruz and Warren, on the platforms as stated, Cruz wins easily. The gun issue will decide it.

16

Naw. The gun group would vote for a wet dog turd if it had an “R” after its name. Doesn’t matter who the candidates are. The question is which states would Warren fail to carry that Obama did? Damned if I can think of any.

17

I imagine turnout would be very low as neither candidate is exactly charismatic, but in the end Cruz would win.

As liberal as the Straight Dope membership is, I have yet to see anyone open a thread wishing for a third Obama term. Warren (and Hillary and, frankly any Democrat) will be seen as an extension and continuation of Obama’s term and the country is not going to go for that if Obama’s approval ratings and the 2014 shellacking are any indication of the political environment in two years.

It’s the same issue John McCain had with Bush falling so badly in the polls. Obama was fresh that year and from the party out of power. His plans had yet to be tried. McCain tried to run against Bush’s policies but was saddled with a record that in general supported those same policies. Warren would have the same problem. When it came the time, she voted for the policies Obama wanted to implement; policies that by the most important measure, whether the voters feel they worked, failed.

18

Based only on the positions as delineated, Cruz would win - but neither is all that extreme.

Not to resist the hypothetical, but it couldn’t be the case that either would run or be elected purely on these positions. It would be on everything else they believe in, which would come out in the course of the campaign.

That having been said -

Cruz:

Pro-life in all cases except in endangerment of woman’s life; no exceptions for rape.

*This is an extreme pro-life position, sort of. It does follow logically, however - if a fetus is a separate human life, then it does not deserve to be killed for something its father did. But the President does not control this, and thus would have to have enough of a majority in Congress, or appoint enough Justices to bring about this change. *

Is strongly against the ACA; one of the central themes of his campaign is its repeal.

Supports gun rights; has made clear in various campaign speeches that he would go to extremes to prevent infringement of these rights.

Is against any sort of pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US; has been vague on plans for immigration reform.

Believes that reducing the national debt belongs at the forefront of a healthy America. Has stated he’d reduce federal involvement in the economy and rely on the strength of the free market.

None of these are extreme positions. Maybe they appear to be so on the SDMB, but that doesn’t make them extreme. And I suspect the Democrats have had their fingers burned enough on gun issues to learn that.

Believes that Climate Change is not supported by data and not a priority for any nation; supports decreasing environmental regulations imposed by the EPA.

*Also not really a mainstream position. In this he has the advantage over non-denialists, in that nobody has good ideas on what we can or should do, how much it will cost, and some reasonable reassurance that it will fix the problem, or that the problem is severe enough that it must be fixed instead of just dealing with the consequences as they arise. Or doing nothing, and letting the market drive up the cost of oil to the point that alternatives are cost-effective. *
Gotta go to a meeting - more later, if I get a chance.

Regards,
Shodan

19

Tax hikes != anti-taxpayer.

20

Don’t you realize most Americans would call that pretty whacko?