So, apparently i missed some third party candidates, and I wanted to go over some of them and add them to my overall ranking list. Given the wide variety of candidates here, and not wanting to dwell on my more nuanced Metric #2, I'll just go by Metric #1 as it's a better snapshot for how I'm voting this time anyway.
Claudia De La Cruz is a Marxist Leninist running for president as part of the Party For Socialism and Liberation.
Basic income support - 0/10
She does not appear to be for basic income
Medicare for all support - 10/10
She does mention medicare for all in her platform.
Economic policies (other than UBI/M4A) - 5/10
While she does support a lot of my priorities other than UBI, she's too extreme. Pluses, she's for free college, living wages, and unions, cons, her housing policy seems completely nonsensical, she calls for 100% tax over $10 million, and she literally wants to seize the means of production. I'll give her a 5 since I agree with the more moderate standard fare left wing stuff she supports, but I'm also a hard no on her more extreme positions.
Social policies - 5/10
Again, agree with more standard left wing goals, but think she's very extreme in wanting to overthrow the current order of things. She also is very woke and is for reparations, stuff like that. She's just...very illiberal in her methods to achieve her goals. Talks about locking up wall street people and stuff, no. Like, you can be left, without being crazy left, she's crazy left.
Foreign policy - 0/10
She literally wants to cut 90% of the defense budget. Hard pass.
Worldview/ideology- 7/20
While I have to give her some credit as a more moderate, liberal leftie that we do have some points in agreement, her policies and methods go way too hard, and I'm kind of a hard pass on her. We need to achieve progress via reform, and nationalizing everything and locking up people we dont like just isn't it.
Consistency/dedication to progressive values- 6/10
Given the key word is progressive values, I'll give her high Marx (hahaha, get it?). But still, shes terrible on liberal values that are normally assumed or taken for granted, and she ain't for UBI.
Experience/competence- 0/10
She's thankfully not very competent or experienced, and shouldn't be taken for granted.
Doesn't act as a spoiler- 0/10
I mean shes running third party, and I consider her to be as much or more of a threat as Trump tbqh.
Total- 38/100
Eh, in some ways she kinda exposes some flaws in my metrics. I mostly was just assuming everyone but trump would kinda be okay with liberal democracy, and she really ain't. Still, I kinda sorta agree with her on some things due to also being on the left. I just think shes way too extreme. I feel like given how I feel about her she should score lower, but the metric is the metric and it's a flaw in what I'm measuring.
Which brings me to the other question: what about the warmness rating?
Gut instinct says:
20/100
I mean, if i rationalize it, I could go higher, like the metric #1. Or I could go down to zero due to MLs being illiberal and being for batcrap insane ideas. I ended up instinctively splitting the difference. Fair. Next.
Peter Sonski is part of the American Solidarity party, which if I recall is a socially conservative but economically liberal party that kind of have a theocratic approach to politics.
Basic income support - 0/10
There is no overt support of basic income
Medicare for all support - 0/10
There's no overt support of medicare for all either.
Economic policies (other than UBI/M4A) - 8/10
He largely has a pro worker agenda, and one with distributist characteristics from what I can read.
Social policies - 2/10
I mean, the dude is basically a theocrat. his big issue seems to be banning abortion. He's against gay marriage. However, he seems liberal on social justice to some extent, and he's against the death penalty.
Foreign policy - 7/10
He seems dovish on foreign policy in his platform, but he does seem to have the sanity to be somewhat pro ukraine and pro israel so he seems more pragmatic than most leftists at least.
Worldview/ideology- 6/20
Economically he's okay, but not really as progressive as I'd like. Socially he's just...no. Foreign policy he's okay I guess. Eh, not a huge fan of this guy.
Consistency/dedication to progressive values- 3/10
He's not really that progressive. He has some okay economic ideas though.
Experience/competence- 4/10
Eh, he was on a school board once apparently and he seems relatively pragmatic but he's also not super experienced either.
Doesn't act as a spoiler- 0/10
Third party, automatic L.
Total- 30/100
I mean, he's slightly preferable over a republican, but that's about it. Doesn't score very highly.
Warmness rating- 25/100
The fact that he's a christian theocracy is just a turn off for me. Still not ALL of his positions are bad.
Michael Wood is running as the Prohibition party candidate. I didn't know these guys were still around. Prohibition was considered to be a failure. Ah well, let's check him out.
Basic income support - 0/10
No basic income support.
Medicare for all support - 3/10
His support for universal healthcare is confusing. He does believe no one who needs treatment or medicine should be denied for financial reasons, but he seems to support free market healthcare. he supports medicare and medicaid so he aint a pure free market freak, and he does seem open to a public option, but he's full on opposed to single payer. Due to not having a solid stance I'm kinda giving him a 3.
Economic policies (other than UBI/M4A) - 6/10
This dude really is chaotic neutral. He's for right to work laws, but he also supports paid family leave and a living wage. Also supports free college and possibly student debt forgiveness.
Social policies - 6/10
Eh, they seem relatively moderate all things considered. They seem to fall short of banning alcohol and the like, merely calling for a ban on advertising, as well as high excise taxes on such things. I could come around to that. I just dont think full on prohibition works, but it seems they have learned from that. They seem nominally pro choice but like everything else, he's kinda all over the place and talking out of both sides of his mouth. Dude's totally an enlightened centrist who tries to be exactly in the middle and giving each side like 50% of what they want. Still, seems to be a little more liberal than conservative.
Foreign policy - 5/10
He supports the troops but no major statement on conflicts either way. Still, at this point someone who supports the troops doesnt sound completely insane like modern leftists do so....without knowing anything else, 5/10.
Worldview/ideology- 6/20
I mean I kinda agree with him but I kinda don't, like everything else this guy is it's so nuanced it's hard to make sense of. I consider him a full on enlightened centrist. He's not bad, but he's not my cup of tea.
Consistency/dedication to progressive values- 4/10
I dont consider him very progressive but I trust he would try to implement his platform as stated.
Experience/competence- 3/10
He doesn't have any political experience, but doesn't seem completely insane either.
Doesn't act as a spoiler- 0/10
Third party, automatic 0.
Total- 33/100
He's okay. Preferable to a republican, but vs a progressive, nah.
Warmness rating- 25/100
Meh. He's up there with the Christian guy.
And there you have it. The other third party candidates. I'll add them to my final scorecard.
No comments:
Post a Comment