[Thrymr]

> The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world.

I don't know about that, it has won the popular vote in 7 of the past 8 US presidential elections.

[badRNG]

I mean let's look:

- 2020 - Biden

- 2016 - Trump

- 2012 - Obama

- 2008 - Obama

- 2004 - Bush

- 2000 - Bush

- 1996 - Clinton

- 1992 - Clinton

I'd think that Bush represented a socially conservative position, and I'm not entirely certain that Trump was any more conservative on particular social issues. Additionally, I think Clinton represented a middle of the road approach to social issues (RFRA, massive deregulation, "begrudgingly" signed Defense of Marriage Act, etc.) On economic issues, they all fall somewhere between middle of the road and hardline neoliberalism.

[scythe]

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and HR Clinton won it in 2016. The only popular vote victory for a Republican post-Cold War was in 2004. Also, "deregulation" is typically an economic issue.

[dpatterbee]

You've missed the word "popular" Bush 1 and Trump lost the popular vote.

[mywittyname]

It could probably be argued that Bush would have lost the 04 popular vote if he hadn't be thrust into the Presidency in 00.

[wayoutthere]

Economically, neoliberalism is indistinguishable from conservativism so I’m not sure what “hardline” means (it also was certainly not Obama — he talked a good game while still murdering children with drones and funneling tax dollars to corporations hand over fist). Liberalism takes the worst parts of both the left and the right and mashes them together. You can’t divorce socialism from social progress — they are two sides of the same coin. No social justice without economic justice.

[adventured]

Bush was definitely socially conservative. Trump was closer to middle of the road socially.

Clinton was middle of the road socially for his time, at best. Trump was more progressive than Clinton.

See for Clinton regressiveness: signed welfare reform (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act); was adamantly against gay marriage (the Defense of Marriage Act); don't ask don't tell; aggressively championed one of the worst human rights violations in US history in his tough on crime campaign (1994 crime bill); Clinton did practically nothing to advance drug legalization and instead furthered the oppressive war on drugs program by the US Govt; started another major US war; financial and telecommunications deregulation; Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Clinton was an excellent conservative.

And when it comes to the border and immigration (as a mark against Trump on the social score), the Obama Admin deported more people per year than the Trump Admin did.

[scythe]

>Clinton did practically nothing to advance drug legalization

Clinton tolerated the first medical marijuana program in the US when it was passed in California in 1996 (Prop 215). That was the first significant liberalization of drug laws since 1980; if the Feds had shut it down, the movement may have been significantly slowed.

[reducesuffering]

While true, politicians cant stray too far from their base, and there was 20 years of social progress in the general population between them: drug decriminalization, gay marriage, etc.

[wayoutthere]

Only because it’s been pitted against increasingly obvious forms of fascism. And it was unpopular enough that Hillary Clinton lost against Donald fucking Trump who was at least pushing something different.

There are a lot of people in this country, myself included, who have stopped voting period. No meaningful change will happen by continuing to elect democrats and I’m solidly in the accelerationist camp at this point. An economically left platform would get me out to the polls. Yang is not that; this is just neoconservativism in new clothes.