04-25-2017, 01:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2017, 01:55 PM by Eric the Green.)
(04-25-2017, 05:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(04-25-2017, 04:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yup; they have always been a problem, says this blue folk. But, as less extreme than his version, as part of normal liberal Western-influenced society, aspects of free-market Reaganism (libertarian economics) have their valid place.
Reagan, Ayn Rand, Mises and Hayek, Milton Friedman, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich; these folks need to be put on the shelf after their hard, long run.
Gee? How did you ever guess I was thinking of you when I typed the bold phrase above?
CNN has Elizabeth Warren pushing the Warren - Sanders progressive wing of the Democrats. Their angle is not new and not surprising, but might be understood as standing opposite the Tea Party's rejection of the establishment. I've been talking about 3 parties, with the Republicans and Tea Party in open conflict. The Warren - Sanders wing hasn't reached that level yet.
But we might see a four party system for a while. Both the Tea Party and the Warren - Sanders people want a major break from the unraveling pattern. The establishment Democrats and Republicans alike are quite unpopular, viewed as being servants of the capitalist elite class. If we are to break the unraveling pattern, it seems that the Warren - Sanders faction has to end up dominant. While the Tea Party is angry at the establishment, they don't see the Reagan pattern as being the unraveling establishment.
Sanders and Warren are trying, but they haven't the clout in Congress yet. I don't see that they are moving in the country in the direction of regeneracy yet. Thus far, it is the other three factions that are becoming more unpopular. The Warren - Sanders faction is there, but they aren't yet beginning to resemble the steamroller required for a regeneracy.
Well, a steamroller effect occurred in the previous saeculum that resembles ours, in 1860, when the opposition to Lincoln split three ways and allowed him to win.
Of course, according to my horoscope scoring method, Lincoln had a 16-3 score, which means an innate appeal to what America votes for. Sanders is pretty good, 14-7, but may not beat Trump's 9-4. The regeneracy will depend on a candidate from the left side who can win. I thought Hillary had a chance, but it was always just a chance. My revised score for her is 9-11, although her likely Jupiter rising may have made it closer to Trump's score. Nevertheless, in all 58 USA presidential elections, only 3 candidates with barely-negative scores have ever won (regardless of the Jupiter factor, which helped TR, 12-15; the other two were Garfield, 8-9, and John Adams, 6-7).
The bottom line is that our potential regeneracy still depends on a good presidential candidate. Hillary wasn't a good enough candidate to win. Warren (8-7) is not going to cut it either, when push comes to shove in electoral politics. She doesn't have a wide enough appeal, and it's mostly a matter of personality rather than substance.
So not only does a candidate have to appeal to a big enough slice of the mainstream, (s)he has to have that basic compatibility with Americans, who vote more on emotion and personality than on substance. When a candidate has both, that makes a good president who can get elected.
My carefully-researched horoscope scoring method indicates Terry McAuliffe 11-2+ has the best chance to be that candidate. It may not matter if he's not far enough left. I have seen him speak, and take stands for what he advocates, and he makes himself and his causes believable. Sherrod Brown 19-8 would be great, but I worry about his voice.
The quality of the candidate, and how great a speaker he or she is, matters the most in determining whether we enter a valid regeneracy.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html