The reasonable middle

[VikingsGuy]

Iowa Voters in Obama-Trump County ‘Open-minded’ About 2020 Election

Howard County, Iowa voted by more than 20 percentage points for Obama in 2012 and more than 20 percentage points for Trump in 2016. WSJ’s John McCormick sat down with a group of the county’s voters to discuss their outlook on the 2020 election.

www.wsj.com

 

[dirtclod Az.]

 

[VikingsGuy]

A quality reply to a 13 minute video 1 minute after it is posted. Thanks for helping to make my point.

 

[noharleyyet]

A quality reply to a 13 minute video 1 minute after it is posted. Thanks for helping to make my point.

Perhaps it meant TLDL...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I really appreciate the discussion about specific issues that influence their votes.
I despise people who vote "their team" with no knowledge of the issues, yet I don't begrudge anyone for voting for any candidate if their decision is based on thoughtful reflection.

Further makes me believe that split ticket voting and open primaries should be considered.

 

[Nameless Range]

Interesting video.

I once heard an economist, maybe Tyler Cowen, say that at a minimum, someone should decide if their life has gotten better or worse under a candidate and use that as a base premise to move forward from for voting. At the time, and still, I think that is so simple and biased as to be stupid, but it is disturbingly a more advanced heuristic than "I'm on team red" or "I'm on team blue."

Further makes me believe that split ticket voting and open primaries should be considered.

I wrote this on another thread, but three things I think would fix a hell of a lot that are entirely feasible:


1) Non-partisan primaries: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/what-if-the-parties-didnt-run-primaries/411022/

2) Ranked-choice voting: https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used

3) A very sound GIS analysis could result in far more impartial district boundaries that are far less "fixed". It would near-functionally eliminate gerrymandering. http://www.cornellpolicyreview.com/...lysis-political-unintentional-gerrymandering/

 

[Deleted member 28227]

3) A very sound GIS analysis could result in far more impartial district boundaries that are far less "fixed". It would near-functionally eliminate gerrymandering. http://www.cornellpolicyreview.com/...lysis-political-unintentional-gerrymandering/

Let experts use science to maintain a public good.



You're a monster!!!!!

 

[Europe]

Supports my contention that "we" in fly over country are not stupid.

In my case Arizona

Actors, singers, politicians, activists, media are all entitled to their opinion, but so are we.

The discussion about medicare for all and obamacare was interesting.

The "discussion" in general,--calm, intelligent, reasoned discussion, was refreshing

 

[mplane72]

country before party

 

[VikingsGuy]

Let experts use science to maintain a public good.

Out of respect for Mr. Goodwin, I won't reference some folks who believed they were doing that in the 30's - even science can be the problem. Science-based or not, government power must be highly constrained in favor of the individual.

 

[VikingsGuy]

1) Non-partisan primaries: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/what-if-the-parties-didnt-run-primaries/411022/

I wonder about this one. In heavily biased districts (80% right or 80% left) it just reenforces the eco-chamber from my estimation - no chance that the 20% would ever have the platform of the election cycle to raise their views. Maybe it would help if paired with #3 (more balanced voting units) on your list.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

@VikingsGuy Guy, Thanks for posting. It gives folks some stuff that we really need to think about.

I have no problem with people voting their conscience, as long as it is an educated and well thought out decision. However, I sure don't want the idiots in congress or other politicians deciding for me or anyone else. All I got to say about that...

 

[LousyResident]

"The reasonable middle" . . . or as I have liked to say, "The quiet majority"

If we just ignored the extremists on the outskirts on both sides we'd all be a lot better off.

 

[cwitherow]

Refreshing to see no raised voices, name calling, or he said/she said. I wish more of this was on at night, instead of what we get now.

 

[hank4elk]

"The reasonable middle" . . . or as I have liked to say, "The quiet majority"

If we just ignored the extremists on the outskirts on both sides we'd all be a lot better off.

Listen to them,but register it as being extreme and go from there. Use your nogin.

 

[Gr8bawana]

We can sure tell it's the hunting "off season". ☢

 

[VikingsGuy]

We can sure tell it's the hunting "off season". ☢

Just think are how big the antlers will get next to the plants!

 

[Irrelevant]

I once heard an economist, maybe Tyler Cowen, say that at a minimum, someone should decide if their life has gotten better or worse under a candidate and use that as a base premise to move forward from for voting. At the time, and still, I think that is so simple and biased as to be stupid, but it is disturbingly a more advanced heuristic than "I'm on team red" or "I'm on team blue."

The problem with that logic would be that presidential terms would be 8 years. Has anyone actually noticed their life getting shittier based on national level politics? Sure bad things happen and some years are better than others (at least theoretically), but we are so freakin' privileged in America that my life gets better every year even if a total asshat is elected.

 

[MTGomer]

 

[Pucky Freak]

I enjoyed the clip, as far as people sharing their political views as it relates to their personal and community lives.

I think the persons in the video have little to do with Howard county, IA, and much more to do with WSJ cherry-picking articulate, calm, well-spoken, and thoughtful persons together to have a meaningful discussion about political issues. This could be accomplished in most American communities of similar sizes. You pick 7 random Howard county adult residents and your political dialogue is probably more like the mud-flinging, bias, media room echo chambers, and poorly informed claims that we're all used to hearing.

I despise people who vote "their team" with no knowledge of the issues, yet I don't begrudge anyone for voting for any candidate if their decision is based on thoughtful reflection.

Being an issues voter is one way to approach to participating in representative democracy, but it's not the only good approach. Millions of Americans are "single issue voters" because a particular issue means a lot to them - good for them. Kudos to the parties and candidates who have the brains to capitalize on single issue voters in order to get themselves into office and advance their platform which includes far more than a single issue. I research issues prior to casting a vote, but at the end of the day about 50% of my vote is weighed towards size and scope of government, because that's what I care most about in government.